HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93009_1324 (2)PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Haire declared the meeting to be in public hearing
session.
DISCUSSION OF R-20 ZONING - MOBILE ROME HARDSHIP CASES:
Allison explained that recently the planning staff was requested to
examine allowing mobile homes in R-20 zoning as a hardship. An
amendment was prepared; however, the Planning Board denied approval
in a 7-2 vote on August 7, 1996.
Commissioner Johnson said he was being asked to be
compassionate with another person's property. Johnson asked who
would be responsible (assuming R-20 hardships were approved) when
a site was left with a dilapidated mobile home. The county
attorney was asked to speak on this scenario. Mr. Pope said he was
unaware of any provision in the statutes or.county ordinances.
Pope said it would probably be possible to set up a mechanism to
allow a lien to be placed on the property for removal costs. Any
ordinances adopted would have to define the circumstances and the
procedures whereby the lien would be imposed so there would be an
opportunity for a hearing.
No one spoke in favor or against this matter.
Chairman Haire adjourned the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Madison to table this matter until a
complete proposal can be brought back for further study.
VOTING: Ayes - 5; Nays - 0.
DISCUSSION OF AN INTERMEDIATE ZONING CLASSIFICATION: Chairman
Haire declared the meeting to be in public hearing session.
William Allison advised that at the July 23, 1996,
commissioners' meeting a request was made of the Planning
staff/Board to devise an intermediate zoning between RA and R-20.
The new zoning was to particularly address densities for mobile
homes. On August 7, 1996, the planning board recommended a new
classification by a 5-2 vote. The planning board was in consensus
on the permitted uses; however, there was much discussion
concerning densities, e.g., (1) A mobile home may be situated on
a lot of two acres or more in size and (2) A mobile home may be
situated on a lot of less than two acres in size only if it is at
least two -hundred feet in distance from any other mobile home.
John Carr, Attorney (JORDAN, PRICE, WAUGH, GRAY & JONES,
Raleigh, NC): Advised that his firm represented the N.C.
Manufactured Housing Institute and followed zoning matters
throughout North Carolina. Praised commissioners for the new
classification and felt it was a step in right direction for
increased opportunity for more accessible housing in the form of
manufactured housing.
The Institute, however, did have problems with the two acre
requirement and the 200 ft. separation requirement. Carr mentioned
that his understanding was that a single family home only had a
half -acre requirement with no separation requirements.
Requested that the commissioners table the matter and allow
the Institute to assist.
Perry Jenkins: Stated he was involved in three types of
housing. Felt the proposal was very unfair and flawed.
Specifically, had problems with density areas. Did not object to
appearance standards.
John v
kinle. R,_ ealtor: Objected to the classification as
written. Felt that many people would not be able to live in the
493
Aug 2 o gess