Presenter outlines draft manufactured-home park (MHP) zoning; members press for parking, setback and coverage fixes

A presenter reviewed a draft floating MHP (manufactured home park) zoning district and said the proposal would allow manufactured homes in designated park zones only after plan approval by the planning commission and town council. "So going forward, we are saying that mobile manufactured homes can be allowed in the MHP zone, but that MHP zone is a mobile park zone where it has to be more 2 or more," the Presenter said, describing the new floating zone approach.

The proposal sets a minimum park size of one acre and distinguishes park-level setbacks from individual-home setbacks. The Presenter said park setbacks would generally be 25 feet (front, side and rear) while individual manufactured homes would need 15-foot front and 10-foot side and rear setbacks. The plan also would allow a single on-site home for park management in some cases.

Committee members flagged parking language and agreed the draft should refer applicants to existing parking rules rather than repeat them. Speaker 1 noted the existing code (cited in the meeting as section 17-703) already includes parking space and off-street requirements and recommended cross-referencing that chapter. The Presenter said she would add a parking reference to the draft rather than duplicate rules.

Members discussed circulation and maintenance needs for internal streets. The draft lists a minimum travel width of 20 feet; some members recommended two-way standards and said a 36-foot right-of-way would better accommodate maintenance, utilities and sidewalks. "From a town's perspective, we would prefer the ... internal streets would be all weather," said Committee member (speaker 1), who argued two-way travel widths and an adequate right-of-way help with plowing and utilities.

The group clarified the difference between manufactured and modular homes: manufactured homes are built on a chassis, while modular homes are built to state building codes and set on foundations. Members also noted that modern manufactured units can be large—one member said some are about 80 feet long—so lot-sizing and setbacks must account for larger unit lengths.

Several members raised nonconforming-site issues. The draft treats many existing mobile-home parks as nonconforming; members recalled a county rule that limited replacement units to ones no older than 10 years, and asked staff to consider whether to adopt a similar replacement-age limit or to handle replacements in a separate nonconforming-uses chapter. The Presenter said she had pulled some replacement language out of the main MHP draft and planned to address it in a separate nonconforming chapter.

An internal inconsistency also emerged in the draft: it lists a 60% maximum lot coverage alongside a 50% minimum open-space requirement, which committee members observed would exceed 100% of the site. The Presenter acknowledged the discrepancy and said the code currently pulls some of those standards from another chapter; she recommended specifying choices on plans and leaving particular measurements to plan review.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft to add the parking chapter cross-reference, clarify travel-width/right-of-way language, resolve the lot-coverage/open-space inconsistency and refile the MHP language and the separate nonconforming-use chapter for further review. Procedurally, the group decided to skip the November meeting (it falls on a holiday) and meet December 9. The meeting concluded after a motion to adjourn was seconded and carried.