« back

Hotchkiss Nonconforming Mobile Home Inspection Proposal Draws Protests

February 1st, 2016

Filed under Community, Featured, Hotchkiss, News

1.31.16 Hotchkiss Baptist - snowy WEB

First Baptist Church in Hotchkiss at night during the January 31 storm.  – Tom Wills photo

Hotchkiss Nonconforming Mobile Home Inspection Proposal Draws Protests

By Thomas Wills (The writer is a Town Trustee, Planning Commission member and lead planner as well as the body’s secretary/draft writer)

Hotchkiss Planning Commission

January 27, 2016

Present:  Chair Sharon Schmidt, Chad Lloyd, Secretary- Tom Wills, Lindee Cantrell and Sean Cantrell and Mayor Wendell Koontz. Also present Town Attorney Bo Nerlin.  About 22 members of public were present.

A good sized crowd of mobile home park owners, mobile home landlords, and residents, filled the January 27 meeting of the Hotchkiss planning commission and expressed displeasure with a proposal for the Town to periodically inspect older, non-conforming mobile homes for safety. The general complaint was that such a requirement targeted trailers and lower income people while ignoring similar concerns and problems in the town’s older site-built homes. Added expense and a fear of losing homes was also expressed.

It is rare that Hotchkiss Planning Commission meetings draw any audience other than the occasional property owner applicants for a special review. So a crowd of about twenty-two in the relatively modest-sized Hotchkiss Council Chambers at Town Hall was impressive.  It was more people than had been interested in major previous items such as building codes, zoning, commercial marijuana discussions and the Hotchkiss Community Master Plan.

Background: The mobile home and mobile home and RV park regulations were adopted in the mid 1990’s after a resident proposed creating a mini-trailer park next to his Barrow Mesa home. The regulation set standards for new mobile home parks that none of the present parks met. No trailers could be brought into town that did not meet the National Mobile Home Act standards of 1974 and those of the Colorado Housing act of 1970. Homes older that those dates could be imported if they could be shown by an independent engineer to meet those standards. One home has been brought in since then after such an inspection.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census there were 100 mobile homes in the town at that time; this out of a total of 471 housing units. About 21 percent of the total. A majority of the trailers are located within trailer parks but are allowed independently anywhere in town as long as they are on a 50’ by 125 ‘lot or the equivalent.

In a 2003 Master Plan survey 50% of the residents of Hotchkiss said that trailers should only be allowed within established parks or in a specifically restricted (zoned) area. The Planning Commission, when writing the subsequent zoning ordinance, given the split in opinion, decided to leave things as they were.

Problems:  A review the existing mobile home regulation revealed that although there was a procedure by which existing non-conforming mobile home parks were grandfathered in and could continue operation without being brought into full compliance there was no matchi ng procedure allowing for non-conforming mobile homes themselves to continue. A proposed addition accomplishing this was written based on the standard for other towns.

Then, during the 2015 Commission discussion of the regulation as a whole, Mayor Wendell Koontz proposed that periodic inspections be done of the older, non-conforming trailer at the time of sale or new-occupancy to make sure they met basic safety standards. Language was drafted for this along with a proposed fee of $75. Annual inspections of mobile home parks were also addressed.  Much of the safety concerns stemmed from a fire that destroyed a trailer in a mobile home park in 2015. A weed fire also burned a fence and threatened trailers in the mobile home park just south of the present Hightower Café.

There has also been a concern that allowing new 1970-74 vintage trailers into the town is not a positive thing if the goal is to gradually see poor condition housing be replaced with better units. An old trailer, costing as little a few hundred dollars, might be in poor condition, but still meet the technical 70-74 standards.  Property values of neighbors could be affected, a concern expressed during the Master Plan public comments in 2003.  In order to make progress on this issue it was proposed that a floating age number be used instead of the 70 to 74 number; and 25 years was chosen. Under the proposal no mobile homes older than 25 years from the date of proposed importation could be brought into the town while existing homes would not be seen as non-conforming as long as they met the 70-74 standards.

At the public hearing:

William Brown – non-resident- owns two rental trailers in town. Asked for a definition of fire resistant skirting.  Thought that the 10 month abandonment term for non-conforming trailers might be too brief. Concern about inspections.

Ida Case – resident – lives in older rental trailer – asked what the term “gradually upgrade the quality of the mobile home housing stock” meant.  Answer:  it means that older, substandard  mobiles  should eventually be removed from town but not on any specific timeline, generally by attrition

Lynette Roberts – non-resident – owns mobile home rental in town.  She felt that trailers were being discriminated against as compared to site built housing. Shouldn’t all be inspected for safety? What would inspection criteria be?  If violations were found, 30 days to correct might be too short a period.

Dan Bolton – non- resident -owns two separate trailer parks in the town. Both are non-conforming. Trailers are affordable housing. Did not like the idea of inspections on non-conforming mobiles or the parks.  Questioned 50% value damage criteria for removal if non-conforming home was damaged.

Lenora Milligan – resident – lives in a site built home. Felt that the regulations and inspections targets mobile homes and the poor.  Unfair.

Shirley Arndt – resident? – lives in the mobile home – didn’t like the idea of the inspections.  Fairness issues.

Sandy Cockroft –  resident – owns a mobile home park – was concerned that “safety” was not defined and that such inspections might cross the line into invasion of privacy. Against inspections.

Sandra Howell – resident in an older mobile home – 1973 – works hard to keep it in good condition. Worried about inspections and costs. Older people are struggling. We are not Aspen.

Kris Hillman – resident in regular home – fairness concern in inspections. Agrees with other concerns.

Lee Hartigan – non-resident, owns rental trailer in town. Opposed to inspections.  Would have to raise rent if fees were charged. Fairness issue.

Richard Couch – Pre 1970 and older homes have more style that newer ones. Questioned 50% value damage criteria for removal if non-conforming home was damaged since old mobiles are worth very little.  Inspection fees should be affordable. $25?

Gene Grange – non-resident who owns several rental mobiles in town. Opposed to inspections. What is the building inspector going to inspect? Criteria?  Said he had HUD inspection done?

Pat Medina – resident in mobile home and in-town business manager.  Opposed to inspections. Fairness concerns.

Marlin McCracken – resident – grandfather all non-conforming mobiles in and leave them alone. Opposed to inspections.

Alice McCracken – Agreed with general concerns and fairness issue.  If trailers should be inspected than so should all older homes.

Larry Jakubiak – resident – would this make it hard to sell an older, pre 73, trailer?  If it was safe it could be sold on its present site. Intent was not to require non-conforming home to be brought up to code, but this may not be clear in the language.

Written comments:  Ruth Carson – resident senior living in trailer park – opposed to inspection requirement. Limited income is challenge enough without new costs.

Ron Hanks – resident in mobileon Willow Heights.  Against inspections – there are older site-built homes in worse shape and less safe than many mobiles.

General conversational comments:  Put the regulations and proposals in Spanish. The 25 year limit on importation should be flexible and consider condition of homes.

At the conclusion of the comments, Mayor Koontz closed the public hearing and assured those present that there would be other opportunities to comment on a revised version of the proposal.  He invited those present to consider filling the vacant position on the planning commission. Members of the public departed along with commission member Lloyd who had police duties to attend to.

Commission discussion:  The commission agreed that the proposal needed more work and will continue on it over the next few months.  Tom Wills and Sharon Schmidt will work on a revision over the next month to be used as a starting point at the February commission meeting. Once a new draft is completed  another public hearing will be held before the commission.

 9.15 Paonia Farm - Feeds combo.indd

 

Odisea  Ad

 

Tags: , , ,