Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Robbins board adopts UDO text change after public comment on manufactured homes in ETJ

Robbins Town Board · March 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Robbins board adopted a UDO text amendment and accompanying consistency statements; during public comment Kelly Decker described how ETJ rules prevented placing a manufactured home on property she had purchased and urged the board to consider targeted changes.

The Robbins Town Board adopted a text amendment to the town’s Unified Development Ordinance and the required consistency statements after a public hearing. Planning staff explained the text changes were intended to align the cited section with the rest of the UDO and to remove a typographical inconsistency in the table of uses.

During the public‑hearing period, Kelly Decker (S9) described a personal situation in which she purchased property in the town's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), obtained county approvals for a septic system and an address, but was later told the town would not permit placement of her manufactured home under current rules. Decker asked the town to consider changing the ordinance to allow certain manufactured or modular homes in specified ETJ locations—she suggested limits such as newer double‑wide units or time‑limited placement as a temporary housing option.

Board members noted that concerns about the legality of ETJ restrictions are sometimes matters for state legislators and county officials, and staff recommended that the board adopt targeted language changes rather than broad, immediate policy shifts. The board voted to adopt the UDO text amendment and the related consistency statements by voice vote; the transcript records the votes as unanimous.

The board did not take immediate additional action on Decker’s individual case; staff advised those with concerns about state law or ETJ matters to consult county or state representatives as appropriate.