Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Manufactured Home topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board offers conditional path for second residence at 144‑148 Johnson Road pending code checks
Summary
Applicant Mr. Luckette requested placement of a manufactured home at 144‑148 Johnson Rd.; the board moved to have Chair Peck provide documentation to Code Enforcement that the board is prepared to approve placement if the unit meets current codes and Land Development Law Section 505 criteria.
At the April 28 meeting the Planning Board reviewed an application from Mr. Luckette to place a manufactured home at 144–148 Johnson Road on a parcel where a manufactured unit had been located about 10–12 years ago. The file included older (2005‑era) surveys, septic approvals, and a prior certificate of occupancy, but the original variance allowing two residences on the lot could not be located in the packet.
Board members raised several technical questions. Member John Mura asked whether the long absence of the prior manufactured unit constituted abandonment, which could require a change of use determination or a full contemporary site‑plan review. The board discussed setback issues under current codes and whether the lot could be credibly subdivided. Surveyor Dave Bardoun, familiar with prior work on the road, said aerial and historical measurements show roughly 280 feet of road frontage and about 2.2 acres, with approximately 45–48 feet between the house and the garage, and suggested a shared driveway could work if the parcel were subdivided.
Members noted manufactured homes must meet current workmanship and safety standards (for example, an appropriate HUD or manufacturer placard indicating post‑1979 construction and satisfactory wiring) and that Code Enforcement would verify those items. To avoid imposing costly new full surveys where prior approvals could be substantiated, the board discussed allowing a lower‑cost path such as a basic plot plan showing proposed location and dimensions, subject to Code Enforcement and Section 505 review.
A motion was made that Chair Peck provide documentation to the Code Enforcement officer stating the Planning Board is prepared to approve placement of new manufactured housing on the property if it meets current codes and the criteria in Land Development Law Section 505 (including credible subdividability and proper setbacks). The minutes record the motion but do not record a roll‑call vote or final disposition in the filed minutes; the applicant was directed to work with Code Enforcement and potentially submit a plot plan.
The board did not adopt any ordinance change at the meeting; the action recorded is a direction to coordinate review with Code Enforcement and to pursue the least costly defensible path consistent with the Land Development Law.
