The 6-2 vote, with Grooms and Councilman Robbie Sikes opposed to tabling the amendments, took place at the March 16 meeting.
Sikes told the NEWS Monday that he is not opposed to the proposed changes.
“People need trailers to live in, more people are going to need them with this economy,” Sikes said. “I’ve talked to the people who live in the mobile homes, and there was nothing (being proposed) that they were not willing to comply with.”
Sikes believes the amendments will come before Council again, but he does not know when.
Including its extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction, Trinity has approximately 249 mobile home units in 24 existing parks. All of Trinity’s mobile home parks are considered nonconforming because they were built prior to the city’s incorporation in 1997 and do not meet city codes. City Manager Ann Bailie said city policy, based on their interpretation of the 2004 ordinance, has been to allow replacement of mobile units, even nonconforming ones.
Problems arose, however, when city staff unknowingly issued a replacement permit for a mobile unit that should not have been approved.
“Suddenly the Council was concerned about replacement criteria,” Bailie explained. “They had some suggestions, then we took it to the Planning and Zoning Board to get their input.”
The result was a zoning amendment, based on what the Planning and Zoning Board recommended at their Feb. 23 meeting. The amendments were then presented to Council.
The proposed amendments, which Council tabled, include specific criteria for the replacement of mobile homes in existing parks. Each unit would be required to have underpinning, to be tied down and have all wheels and axles removed. Each unit would also be required to have a concrete pad or a deck or porch built of treated lumber and built to code at the front entrance.
Parks would be required to have an erosion control plan, maintain a list of the park’s mobile home owners, establish animal controls, provide waste disposal, annual inspection, adequate roads and 911 addresses. Commercial businesses would be prohibited and all parks would have to be compliant with existing regulation for electrical service in mobile homes.
Only two people spoke during the public hearing. Derek Apple, a park owner, was not opposed to the proposed amendments. Another owner, Jerry Parks, requested a copy of the ordinance because he did not fully understand what was being proposed.
Bridges made the motion to table the issue indefinitely after the public hearing.
“We need to table this,” she insisted. “Go look at the parks, there’s lots of variations. I don’t think this is well thought out.”
“The Council needs to table this and give everyone a chance to look this up,” agreed Councilwoman Linda Gantt.
Sikes pointed out that they were simply considering additions to an ordinance that the city already had and that there was no need to put this off.
“I think these two councilwomen just want us to do the right thing,” Mayor Carlton Boyles interjected.
“Mayor, I’m all about due diligence, but we need to talk about this (at a regular council meeting),” Grooms responded. “We can’t keep talking about this in pre-agenda (meetings). What else do you want in a mobile home park?”
Grooms’ question was directed toward Bridges with whom he’d had a heated exchange earlier in the meeting.
“I don’t like to sit up here and be brow beaten,” Bridges answered. “If you go and look, you’ll see that some things shouldn’t be replaced and other things are covered elsewhere (in the city’s ordinances).”
Bailie ended the discussion by asking what the Council wanted. “If you don’t like the interpretation and what we’re doing, what do you want?”
“I want City Council to discuss this in front of the people,” Grooms replied.
He was referring to Council occasionally tabling issues to their pre-agenda meeting held at 4 p.m. on the second Tuesday. While the meeting is open to the public, the time of day means fewer citizens can attend.
“We can’t keep flip flopping, we can’t keep going through eight or nine months of changes — we cannot go down this road,” Grooms reiterated. “Table this indefinitely? That’s a joke!”
The majority of Council, however, disagreed, and voted to table the amendments indefinitely.
In a follow-up interview, Grooms said he wants the Council to say specifically what they want — density, timing or models. He may bring up the issue at the April 20 or May 18 meeting.
After the February Planning and Zoning Board meeting, city staff had developed three options for the Council to consider.
The first would continue to allow replacement of homes in manufactured home parks, provided that each replacement unit meets the criteria mentioned.
Under the second option, all parks would have to be rezoned and acquire a special permit. If the park owner did not comply, the park would be allowed to continue without replacement units until all homes were removed from the property. In this option, mobile home parks would eventually be phased out of the city.
The third option would allow all parks to continue, but would require owners to meet all zoning requirements before any units could be replaced. All replacements would be required to meet ordinance criteria.
Post a Comment
