HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-01-27 88 AC ORDER88 AC
Introduced by Councilor 54119V,', January 27, 1975
CITY OF BANGOR
(TIRE.) (ffirber, 3raanLag.xla[udbg.Board-to, Consider Walocation. of Mobile __..
Homs on Individual. Sites within the City of Bangor
By the qty CenneM efae City ofBana r:
ORDERED.
THAT the Planning Board, with the assistance of the Planning Department
and the Legal Department, review time issue of whether the Crdioances of the
City of Bangor should be amended to permit the location of mobile home on
Individual lots within the City at Bangor] and
Be it further oI✓DBBBB, THAT such review shall include comideration of the
following:
(1) Thenumber of mobile homes-aithin the City presently
located an individual. lots.
(2) The number of mobile home within theCitypresently
�y located in approved mobile home parks,
(3) Any available information as to the future meds and
demands of Bangor residents for use of mobile homes for
residential purposes,
(4) Any special problem that may armee as the result of
the location of mobile homes on individual lots.
Be it further DMEBEC, MT the Remedied Board file its findings and recomasnd—
ations with the Bangor City Council on or before }arch 1, 1975.
IN CITY r
January27, 1975
wrnarld
qAa
i€dhand desirability
of
mobile homesoiII amended,
-.-"passim."
'®
.y,cxms cumix
5"s
ORDER
Title,
;P9.?13nniny Hoetd.to Consider
o£,Mabile Horeb on Ind�rSitea
within the City of Bangor
//��/j/nytrod ed ff by
. Y�..... ..
C_w/councilman
RECEIVED
p7S JAN 22 IM 3:00
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
;rtY C' S69G4R. MAINE
'Haman, ske cause of Marne --rbc Gateway m Maines Need VooaO ad Seasbame Bash
yg
4Ss
.,.......w...
,. f
i
0% of 1Bmigore Awre -
..aun�ne DmFAwrMxW'i
April 23, 1975
14
T9: Honorable City Council
FROM: Planning Board
RE: Mobile Some Study, Council Order 988AC.
{`
Gentlemen:
The Planning and Legal staff submitted an initial reply in
response to Council order /BRAC. This letter will outline the
Planning Board's recommendations that were requested in that Order.
Considerable background materiel was submitted to the Council
which outlined the existing status of mobile homes within ganger,
from both m physical and legal point of view. In the recommendations
that the Planning Board are making here, that data hes been considered
of the ordinance in effect presently and in the Past as well
m'nlight
information and ideas expressed by the Public hearing and general
't
discussion. At the Public hearing on March l7, seventeen owners of
nubile homes located on individual lots outside of Parke appeared
(,'G
to be heard. Transcripts of this hearing are attached.
A number of concepts appear valid. Some of these are.
(a) Mobile homes are at present and will continue to be, a signifi-
cant mode of housing.
(b) That the " mmics" of mobile home living will cautious, the
desire on the Part of many to seek this style of housing.
(c) Under the Present mode of construction and use, mobile homes
are rough different from Conventional housing to create
nompetability problems when inter -mixed.
(d) The value of tax revenue return derived from mobile homes lee
to be considered as it relates to public services.
yJ.m
Mobile Home Study Page 2
(e) The plight of those presently on individual Sites must be considered.
(f) There is very little concrete data as to shat future demands maybe
for mobile bases within the City although most projections indicate,%
continually increasing sales.
(g) Those living in mobile homes consider them very satisfactory and
desireable housing.
(h) There can be strong conflicts between mobile home housing and
customary housing in the residential growth areas.
(d) With the eics
of maintaining large bases and the present housing
shortage, therewill continue to be those who seek the ease of
maintenance promoted by the mobile home$ - particularly older people.
After considering the may aspects of the Mobile huge situation,
the Planning Board therefore makes the following specific recomendatiorm
to clarify existing conditions and resolve future problem: -
1. Existing mobile home units on individual site$ should be allowed
to r min legally - in effect becoming mo - onforging; however the
nits would not be allowed to expand or be replaced. when an existing
nit reached the end of its useful life, it would be removed and
an replacement permitted. In other words, phased out ever the
life of the existing unit.
2. No new individual mobile homes should be allowed on scattered site&'.'.
within any zone (same as present ordinance).
3. Motile homes should be permitted in mobile home parks as controlled
under Chapter II of the City Ordinance.
4. Mobile homes should be permitted in mbile home Subdivisions for
individual ownership of mite in the Agricultural zone under one
or both of the following procedures:
(a) Aseondominium where a lot would be individually owned
And nue common streets, open space, recreation, and
services mold be jointly owned and managed as a group.
(b) As a regular subdivision allowing only mobile bases with
individual ownership of lots and public ownership of streets,
utilities, and recreation -open space.
A number of changes would be required in existing ordinances as
well as the drafting of new legislation for the subdivision process.
Since such ordinances including the condominium approachhen be rather.
volved, the Planning hoard feels that the "policy" determinations
should be resolved first. If the Council approves much policy, then
they should direct that the proper ordinance changes be drafted.
�-
21olk
'Bsagan abs reen. of Main.--rbe Gateway to Maine's Nonb 16aedl sad Seashore, liaern
.1 1111"GIN,
• (gal of Pausar, C airs
PLA
ING DEPARTMENT
February 28, 1975
TO: honorable City Council
FROM: Planning & legal Staff
Rg: Nobile homes - Council Order 88AC - Preliminary Report
In order that the Planning Sneed Any comply with Council Order 88AC,
the Planning and Legal Staff have attempted to recourse the present statue
and problems inection with mobile homes within the City of Ranger, was
that the MeaningHoard may formulate recommendations for action if needed.
Me enclosed materiel will help to define the present situation. The
charts indicate the historical .aspect of the "individual" unite within the
City.
An beat we can tally the unite, there are.
1. Nobile homes outside of parka on individual sites:
Residence Unite 49
Office Unite 4.
2. While Rome Parka:
Home & Location Shea
Queen City Nubile Rome Park ,
475 Stillwater Avem+e - 212
Rainbow Trailer Perk
1343 Ohio Street 64
Grant's While Nome Park
501 Union Street 85 - -
The 1970 reason tinted a total of 2§Z units. 2n owner
occupied and
90 rented. Thie weld indicate a substantial increase innumbar of unite
stone Nen.
. Page 2
Nubile Bomes
Fouler Trailer Park
91 Bogen Road
4
- I1e0bance Mobile Bose Perk
1337 Hammond Street
37
Tester Trailer Town
438 Pinnen Bead
78
TOTAL EXISTING SITES
480
Walsh Perk -Essex St. (ander construction)
I
POTEITIAL SIM
750
The 1970 reason tinted a total of 2§Z units. 2n owner
occupied and
90 rented. Thie weld indicate a substantial increase innumbar of unite
stone Nen.
We are faced With the need toe solve the mobile home eitutation in Hunger.
As it nostands. there e e to be an impacts With v regulations severely cu
bailing the past practice.emMe question therefore, must be reviewed in order that
the policy can be clarified an to the acceptance or prohibition of various forma
of while home u The major problem a al
revolves around "individual" unite Which
have been allowed in the Deet on a one year permit as temporary - but areact
allowed under the n zoning ordinance. If allowed only in "Perks", is there
sufficient alternative choice for those who desire this type of living, or are
forced into mobile homes by economics? If existing choices are totally or Partially
accepted, then it may follow that new alternative methods of using while homes
meet be found provided that %ere is first eetabliahed a formal policy that mobile
home are, and will continueto be, an accepted form of housing Within the City.
What than a e of the alternatives in while home housing and possible
related Problems?
¢
I. Prohibit individual unite by restricting mobilehoees to "mobiiehome parka"
(at at present under existing ordinance) require removal of others.
11. Prohibit individual mobile Mmes but
a. Allow existing unite a "phoning nut" period probably a fixed time,
or Possibly a longer period if the land is owned by the individual
living there.
b. Continue existing units - by default or lack of action, presumably until
some action mac taken by the owner.
III. Allow individual mobile homes as a temporary facility under an approved
system (an in past) but with were specific location and Period of time
control.
IV. Promote qualified while home housing techniques
a. Develop subdivision for individual ownership (based on mobile home
Park elandaeds).
b. Develop rental park for those who don't meet the 'Selective" screening
of existing parke - or just can't find space.
Possible `public housing" approach.
V. Open approach - allowing Perko and individual sites in zones as specified
by zoning ordinance.
VI. Allow mobile human based on limitation be, a fixed Percentage of the betel
housing stock in whatever types or locations are permitted by policy.
(i.e. an more than IN of all housing unite)
These alternatives presumably do wt exhaust all the Possibilities, but de offer
A wide choice on Mich to bane necessary Policy considerations.
-1-
Mat are some of the problems created by these various alternatives?
1. 'General Problems
There is of course the ever present &esthetic abjection and or the real or
imagined ec mmic objection that mobile homes will depreciate the value of
nearby housing. "
Tbere is a genuine desire by some
who wish to live in mobile homes became of
nconoeica at ease of maintenance.
Mere is the ecommic problem related to'realistic-tax-return and coat of services.
If unite are removed from sites, the availability may stimulate the ecattera-
tion of paramount housing - requiring more community services.
2. Based on Alternatives I and II.
(a). Very limited choice of location for that type housing.
(b). Some parka limited to those buying unite.
(c). Many parka very restrictive as to types of families allowed.
(d). Would require) re vel of the existing unite - many on land they our, creating
economic and relocation problems.
(e). May require relocation of some outside the city.
(f). Neire of same to live independently rather than be subjected to various
astrictions.
(g). Problem of disposing Of lend owned and cast of utilities or improvements
to site.
(h). The acoustic Problem of being forced into a very closet .market.
(1). Setting a realistic amortization period and on Mat anis to me me.
- cost of unit
- Present value
- whether property is owned or tut
3. Based on alternative III, the above Problems would generally apply and in addition:
W. There are the administration problems of decision and policy on location,
time, renewability, and enforcement.
(b). Economic Problems of investment for a periodof time _ and the concept
Of using the site for permanent housing - is it a realistic probability?
-2-
4. Based on Alternative N. _
(a). Need to establish Policy of direct Public involvement in this form of housing..
(b). Problem of private owners disposing of existing site by gain equity to Pur.
chane in a subdivision.
(c).. NOT need to create some form of association for the regulation and control
of such areas to maintain quality.
(d). May be conflict on location of such subdivisions or parka from adjacent'
residential uses.
Given a number of possible problem or at least concerns with various approaches -
what then are arae of the advantages?
The primary advantage would appear to be the availability of a wider choice
of housing alternatives - and if'in subdivisoss, would also reduce the dis-
persion of mobile home unite, thereby eliminating Potential conflict.
The Who or subdivision would reduce the conflict with permanent residential
housing - although then may also be conflict with perk locations. due to size
and numbers.
Some alternatives would avoid the legal and economic Problemsof termination
and relocation.
It is possible that mobile homes could be a short term solution to meet the
present housing crunch at a more reasonable coat..
May very well aid the filtering process by Allowing smaller family unite to
get out of large homes - to be passed on to others.
There is need for a general "pelicy".
In order to select an alternative choice and implement it, basic "policy" must be
established an mobile homes within the City.
if Should mobile homes be allowed or prohibited?
P. Is mobile home living an important eepeet of the City's housing stock and a
viable housing alternative from the standpoint of desire, and or ecommice?
3. If m, should it be:
(a). Allowed if desired by individuals, developers, or both.
(b). Promoted by cooperation with Perk developers.
(c). Promoted by Subsidization of Who or tenants, or private ownership.
(d). Promoted by actual municipal involvement.
-3-
Because the mobile home issue is a controversial and sometimes volatile oner
there should be public lmput into the whole question. the aspects of likes and
dislikes, economic and social needs, and potential conflicts should be brought mt.
poi this purpose, the planning Beard is going to hold a hearing on the question
of mobile haves on the 19th of March. It is hoped that this will give them move
feeling and direction to establish the recommendations they will than make to the
City Council..
_iF
MEMORANDUM
T. MOBILE Ng1ES IN GNNBFAL
The City Council by virtue of Council order 88 AC Me requested
that the planning Board with the assistance of the planning add legal
Departments review the issue of whether ordinances of the City of Bangor
should be amendedto permit the location of mobile homes on individual
lots within the City of Bangor. This opinion shall detail the legal
limitations placed upon municipalities in the regulation of trailers.
The courts and commentators have cited n characteristics
of mobile usagee which permit mobile homes to be regulated differently than
conventional frame structures. The most obvious difference between mobile
homes and conventional frame structures is the appearance. Mobile home
most be re n
r than meet conventional frame Structures because of the
width limitations of streets, roads and highways. In addition, the mobile
quality limits the roof design and height of mobile homes. Furthermore,
the exterior surface of the mobile home is designed and covered with
e
materials unlike these need in the design and coverage ofoconventional
frame structures. These characteristics combined with the traditional
stigma attached to 'house traiLera% have been said to cause depreciation
of abutting and neighboring conventional frame structures.
Because of their limited interior apace storage in and about
mobile honeoften results Inconstruction of sheds. and shelters and/or
storage in the open air. Courts have cited this proliferation of out-
buildings as a basis for isolating mobile homes.
Another difference between mobile homes and conventional frame
structures Is the propensity of mobile hots to suffer greater wear and
Lear
u
and to depreciate -the value while conventional franc structures usually
do net suffer as great a wear and t and hold their Initial value o
appreciate. Related to the veins of mobile homes is the failure of mobile
lies it, provide real estate tax r rate m
With the expeee of
services delivered by the municipality to obileshomes.
In the placement of mobile home parks, the ability to concentrate
many dwelling units i r
mall area leads to noise, traffic, glare and
other conditions associated with ov owma
dedness which y be incrosiste
snt
with the qualities of abutting resident fal neighborhoods.
Despite the alleged incompatibility between c entional frame
structures and mobile homes, the courts have r cognized the legitimate _
sed for adequate, Low cost housing. To the beet of my knmledge, there
are o jurisdictions where the courts have permitted municipalities to
absolutely prohibit mobile homes from within their boundaries.
I.I. REGULATION Of MOATLR ROVER IN THE CITY OF MNCOR
The regulation of mobile homes in the City of Bangor first
appeared in the Zoning Ordinance in 1954. The pertinent provision stated;
"ln any z sept Residential, Local Business and On- -
estricced Inivstrfal zone, overnight camps, trailers
and structures
s for temporary residence purposes otherwise
excluded may be erected, altered and need on approval of
the Board of Appeals."
It appeurx that Council O dinar :a L69 It passed on August 27, L956
s the first Mobile Have Ordinance adopted by the City, prom that[ Inception,
the regulations imposed upon mobile homes by the City limited placement of
trailers on individual lots to an undefined temporary period of time.
The 1960 Zoning Ordinance In Article 12, Section 2 included a
provision similar to that contained fntM 1954 ordinance. The pertinent
portion of the 1960 Ordinance stated:
"In any Zone except Residence, Local Business and Standard
Industry Zones, overnight camps, trailer camps, trailers,
and structures fortempo[ary residence purposes otherwise
excluded my be erected, altered and used on approval of
the Board of Appeals."
The 1974 Zoning ordinance eliminated provisions similar to those
cited above. Currently, there is no provision for placing mobile homes o
individual lots. Because such placement is not expressly permitted, it
to prohibited.
The data to be submitted by the planning Department indicates that
mobile homes currently existing on individual lots were, In most cases,
permitted upon the approval of Che Zoning Board of Appeals. The[sided
decision of the Zoning Board most often State that the placement of the
mobile home was limited to one year unless the applicant requested a
'4en wal.' In no cases have we found persons returning to the Zoning Board
for the required renewal. Therefore, ever of the trailers placed on indlviduaL
lots are not c red by a valid permit Issued upon the authority of the Zoning
Award of Appeals And under the Zoning Ordinance as it is presently written
the Zoning Board of Appeals lacks authority to renew
the expired permits. It
is my opinion that.[hose trailers have not become permitted nonconforming
and therefore they are not covered by the provisions permitting the
continuation of such nonconforming uses until the time such use Is abandoned.
Ill. MAINE WSES
Much case law has been Rede in Maine concerning mobile homes. The
Law Court's initial confrontation with the problems of mobile homes ads in
the case of Wright vs. Michaud, 160 Me. L64 (1964). TM plaintiff alleged
that the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Orono was unconstitutional because
of its failure to permit mobile homes on individual lots in certain
The Oxon ordinance did, however, permit placement of mobile homes
within duly licensed mobile home parka. In upholding the Orono ordinance
as applied to the complaining mobile home wn , the court stated:
own do not feel that aesthetic considerations alone will
Warrant zoning restrictions against individual mobile
homes. However, we are
satisfied that with the develop-
went of zoning in the state, a municipality in determining
hether there should be a prohibition of iudivid ual mobile
homesthroughoutthe municipality, may properly consider,
among other factors, the impact of the useof that type of
structure upon the deve Lo mens Of the community.
There has been acomplete revolution in the construction
of mobile homes during the feat 20-25 years. Today the
mode n mobile bore is equipped with all the necessities
and conveniences
enien of comfortable Irving, compressed into a
area of sufficient Site to Met the needs of Increasing
umber of people: Such a structure, however elaborately
as It My be constructed or equipped, does not lose its
appearance s mobile home by becoming affixed to the
salty. Oneto the necessity of travel upon the highways
to its point of destination it will necessarily have
Limited width. As expressed by the Massachusetts Court
In the case of Town of Manchester vs. Phillips, supra.:
It looks Like a trailer, hss the qualities of a trailer
superstructure, and has been built as a trailer,' it is
common knowledge that such a structure, however elaborately
built or landscaped, isoftendetrimental to surrounding
property." 160 Me. at 113-114.
The Court did caution that their holding did not determine whether a
municipality may constitutionally prohibit the use of mobile homes throughout
Its territory. With the aid of the presumption in the favor of the c nstitetiomlity
Of ordinances, the court found that such regulation of mobile homes is not
unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory.
The next case decided by the Lae Court was Inhabitants of the Town
of Windham vs. Sprague, Me. 2L9 A. 2d 548 (L966). The Town ha- ds
remove a
n
newly placed mobile home from its lot. The mobile home replaced
no older which existed a the time of the passage of so ordinance pro-
hibiting mobile homes in a other than mobile home Parke. The question
facing the Court w whether the older mobile home Intl established a permitted
on[ rming use which would allow the corner to replace his mobile home. The
applicable ordinance provision read:
obouse trailersn location will be allowed to remain, _
but if removed, they cannot be reestablished except in
-
approved. trailer parkaP
It appears that the Court gesumed that the ordinance was
valid and that the
older trailer had established a permitted nonconforming a
u The court ruled
that by permitting the replacement of close bailers with newer trailers, the
policy of eliminating nonconforming uses would be frustrated.
Nonconforming uses
a thorn in the side of proper
zoning and should not be perpetuated any longer than
necessary. The policy of zoning Is to abolish non-
conforming bass as speedily as Justice will permit
(citations omitted)." 219 A.2d at 552-553.
Citing the case of Stunt V. Michaud, the Court stated that its
prior decisions recognized "that effective zoning ordinances must be enforced
with the view to future needs and that provisions which permit nonconforming
uses are generally strictly construed." '
The next case 1n the chronology of mobile home cases was Town of
Windham vs. LaPointe, He. 208 A.2d 286 (1970). In that case the LweCourt
ailed that the failure of the mobile home Ordinance t0 include sufficient
standards by which the selectmen and the planning beard could permit
establishment of mobile home parka, In conjunction with a prohibition of
mobile hones on individual lots, made the entire mobile home Ordinance
stltutlonal. Thec curt construed the mobile below ordinance as being
adopted pursuant to the "police powers" of the municipality as opposed to
the "zoning powers." In so construing the ordinance, the court said that
mobile homes we not nuisances per me, and therefore could not be
completely prohibited from a municipality. In concealing on the character-
istics of mobile homes, the court elated:
"In an era of inflationary purchase or rental prices
expecting conventional housing accommodations and
high financial costs, trailer living hes became attractive
to several million people in this country today add, for
many, It is their only hope of owning their awn home. A
house trailer, well constructed and equipped, connected
with the public water, sewer and electrical systema,
cannot be deemed, per a detrimental to the health,
rale, comfort, safety, convenience, apd welfare of the
people of the town o city, without regard to the nature
an use of surrounding properties (citation omitted).
Purthermore,mobile home or trailer parka are legitimate
bus Lw x (citations omitted). Such enterprises do rot
necessarily affect adversely the public peace or safety,
nor e they per as a fire or health haurd. As such. they
cannot be deemed nuisances per as '(citation emitted)."
308 A.2d at 286
In essence, the curt was saying that the complete prohibition of
mobile home an individual lots, with no provision fm the location of mobile
homes elsewhere, cannot be a valid power conferred upon a municipality by
the police power.
The t pronouncement in the a of mobile home regulation
Zoa Lr City of Saco Tweed Le,1CMe. 314 A.2d 135a(1974). TheCity of Saco
ning ordinance prohibited mobile homes outside of mobile base parks in a
C-1 Conservation District. Without citing the case of Wright vs. Michaud as
5
authority, the court decided that the ordinance was valid. The court
intimated that an ordinance which totally banned the use of mobile houses
would be of questionable constitutional validity.
It b therefore Permissible to conclude that the law in the State
of Maine, as well as in many other jurisdictions, permit municipalities to
restrict the placement of mobile heads within duly licensed mobile home
parks. An ordinance which completely excludes all mobile homes from within
municipality would be Subject to the heavy burden of establishing a
rational relationship between such exclusion and the public's health, safety
add general welfare. -
IV. ALTERNATIVES IN CONTROL OF NEW MOBILE HOM S
The gamer of possible mobile here controls fall generally into
the following categories:
1. Prohibition of all while homes
2. Permission of mobile homes in all zones
where one family dwellings are permitted (being
subject to all limitations and requirements placed
upon such one Emily dwellings) _
J. Permission of mobile homes only in duly licensed
mobile M1®e Parks
Poodles4. PeLLsa ton of bile heads In duly licensed mobile
hose parka and provision fob placement of mobile
homed on individual lots for a limited period of then
The first alternative is not legally available to the City. It
Shall be a umed that the second alternative is an undesirable policy
ducia Loo, altluugh it 1s a legally permissible one. The third alternative
is the type of regulation currently 1n force in the City, and as has been
ncludedabove, is a legally permissible regulation. The fourth and final
alternative is a method of regulation employed in the .1954 and 19W Zoning
Ordinance., and is also a legally permissible regulation of mobile homes.
Lluc of the difficulties with a temporary permit system under the
1954 and 1960 Zoning Ordinances was the lack of definition of the 'temporariness"
of the mobile home's placement. To provide for the effective enforcement of
a temporary mobile home permit system, the following provisions should be
Included;
1. Mobile homes should be limited to undeveloped areae,
primarily those in agricultural zones.
2. 'Temporary permits might be issued to per expressly
Intending to construct a permanent residence on the
Lot where the trailer will be placed. The period of
time forwhichthe permit is granted should be of
sufficient length to permit the mobile home owner to
finance and construct his permanent reside nae.
Y. PermiLs might be issued for the placement of mobile
homes on Land near permanent residences of eLose-
"'In, lm nyecll'lea I ly. na I ,RP cb l Idle elderly
I"0 e,I A wlm hav, .a prrel n Lbw IM sial east for II
lemtLlex. 'Thu period, of Llme for which slab porch Le should
Issue In the Case Of His elderly should be for a longer
period of than than prescribed for in (2) above, and should
axpiss upon the .relatives leaving the mobile Lame.
` 4. In the case of construction of a residence, the owner
should clearly understand that upon the expiration of the
permit, the Lraller will beoved. The Cade Enforcement
Officer should have the power, should as a matter of
coarse, issue each temporary permits.
5. If re vol of permits is allowed, such renewal should be
specifically provided for. Prior to the expiration of each
permits, the mottle home owner should receive notice of
expiration from the Code Enforcement Officer. Prior to
renewal 1n the u of residential construction, the Zoning
Board of Appeals should determine whether or not the Owner
has made a goad faith effort to construct his residence
6. 12 MRSA Section 4807-A requires at least 20,000 equate
feet for the subsurface disposal of domestic waste. In
cases where the mobile home Seserviced by the municipal
Gage system, Section 4807-A does ROL apply. However,
where the mobile home w nstrucring a e family
dwelling upon the lot where the mobile home is olocated,
the yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance should be
met. The case of a mobile home occupied by relative
s it relates to the dimensional requirements of the
Zoning ordinance is a matter which needs examination.
7. One of the complaints often raised with regard to mobile
limes Is the storage problem. At least one garage or
storage shed should be a ted upon the promisee large
laugh to contain bicycles, lawn mothers, wheelbarrows,
etc.
V. ALTERNATIVES IN CONTROL OF MOBILE HOMES EXISTING
ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS
The above alternatives relate to the placement of new mobile homes.
whatever c of action is selected for newma
mobile homes, y not
drily accommodate those mobile homes n existing on Individual Iota.
Although the City m y have the power to enforce Immediate removal of a
of tM1oemobile homes, such a harsh resolution of the problem may not be a
palatable solution.
one lege lersh measure em
would be to require the removal of LM1e
existing mobile homes withina specified period of time. In mot imtanceg
the mobile home hes remained after the expiration of the permit. If all
mobile homes on individual lots we declared nonconforming ne and their
ofoval w required within a stated period of time, the mobile character
the home may allow the removal of such home without paying Just
compensation.
'The remainingland If Ownedbythe mobile home occupant, could
be sold at its fair market value.- Therefore, the only expense incurred by
the mobile hon Owner
would be the cost of moving and the difference between
the price received for the old property and the cost of the new property.
Another suggestion is to sake all mobile homes on Individual lots
continuing nonconforming uses. As indicated in the case of Inhabitants of
the Town of Windham vs . Sprague, a Provision could. be drafted termlmting
the nonconforming use upon replacement oftheexisting trailer.
Another alternative suggested is the "carrot and stick" method.
This Involves the required removal of existing mobile homes within a definite
period of time, and the provision of Lots within a mobile home subdivision.
In most c es, the sale of the Lot upon which the mobile home currently stands
would be sufficient to covet the pure a se, price of a lot within a mobile home
subdivision.
TCd
tc
Compiled from information Bathered fmm:
1. Ammeasor's Office
2. Code Enforcement Office
3. Finance Office
4. Beneot Dlrei
5• Visual Impec tion
Compiled By:
PIeW m DIIABP1p7p1'
R<eevt Ho..
Presant
leaved
Beard
time Linin
Caamevte
ro eu
Praeeat
ower
Property
Ye.pea
Approval
set By
Lamed
Owner
To
Ate
Beam
BMANAT
649 "0 Hedy
Alfred
Sane
2/17/72
9 !butte
Oen. Bus.
C2
Casanelli
1049 James A. laazEestine
Jesse T.
Mee• J.T.
9/M/66
1 Yr. ROI
A
Bl
vanisestime
vaneaecsim
1545 Willie C. Taster
Sue
Sere
u/1/6o
1 Yr.
Open Av.
A
'heeler for Mther,
Mrs. Walter Toeier:.
18M Austin I. Beaulieu
Sege
Sue
9/19/67
1 Yr. R^
A
A
2161 Smile TAerialt
D. Michaud
Buie
7/11/70
1 Yr. R••
A
A
Reire
Michaud
BYIDYIGH ICM
George Ctapm Jr.
yvsnzr SPS"
Saxe
Sue
9/1/70
1 Yr. B••
A
A
1024 Carl Mcrrimm Jr.
Carl
Carl
8/23/72
1 Yr.
A
Bl
Morrison Sr.
Morrison
Richard Roach
Same
Have
6/23/71
-
A
A
Trailer for sale
House hunt - 1974
1395 Mildred etnhte
Sema
Blaine
8/30/66
1 Yr. R••
A
A
Originally on land o1
'
Fisher
Hanel Trnat.
15114 ]rinse E. Runaalls
Marshall
Louise
7/9/63
1 Yr. R••
A
A
Runnella
Ruumels
1667 Medford C. seatrease
Medford T.
Medford T.
10/28/70
Not Mrs tWn
A
A
8eahraaae
Seahraame
1 Yr.
1831 Ana T. Crockett
Sue
Alice
6/8/65
1 Yr. R••
A
A
Crockett
2047 loom Auderemv
Sone
Sue
10/28/70
Not Mrs them
A
A
1 Yr.
R•e a Remained Thereafter
P70= ROAD
Present Mo. Ho. Present
permit
Board
Site LLit When Precast Ce®euxe.
Omnsr. Property
Isamed
Dateerel
Bet By Ineuea
Ower
To
To
4[a
Hoard
P70= ROAD
292 Evelyn. S. Bert
Charles
Melvin
8/21/56
8/21/58
Open Dee.
A
Originally on land of
I. Hart
Rest
Charles L. Bart
500 Myrtle Hall
Kealey T.
Myrtle
10/16/62
1 Yr. M••
A
Rl
Cote
Ball
OIZAAM ROAD
174 Frederick B. Lneaster
Hese
A
OBIi'P]N HfUD
.
16 Hverett. Whitney
Arae
Hue
7/26/55
Open One.
H1
HAMMOND SfMEMl'
635 Judson M. Orent
Same
Office trailer
1555 T s E. Nicks
Bate
gees
6/29/71
Not more tEea
C3
Security purposes in
1 Yr.
Standard Industry
Rene.
WCOCH eTHsm'
304 Winer Bros. Inc.
Arse
Same
•(see Comuats)
OB
*No Hoard approval -
office trailer
ROOM ROAD
.
Aalpn Corp.
Sue
OH
R^ . Renaud Thereafter
Present M¢. Ho. Present
PermitBearL
'Quote: This lot w
Time Limit When DONE
Present
Ower Property
issued
Approval
Set By Issued
Owner
TO
Date.
Board
Maur Waxing
Company
376 Norman Murray Same Same
268 David lane
ODLW ROAD
824 Walton Darr Phyllis
Page
824 Duncan Mclain Henry Page
489 viner P,,¢. Inc. Same
R" = Renewed Thereafter
Same
Same
9/22/71 Not to exceed
1 Yr.
6/8/65 1 Yr. R"
6/8/65 1 Yr. R"
Comments
Open. Lev.
KEBDOSEEAG AVE.
'Quote: This lot w
prey. Oct. by trailer
884
Virginia Bridglum
Leslie
Paul K.
9/27/60
1 Yr.
A
A
Wentworth
Etememon
Donald Francis
952
Cornelius Noddin
Same
Same
5/5/59
1 Yr.
1040
Lawrence E. Cheever Anne D.
-
_
_
...Prior to expiration
Jr.
Small
date Mr.. Rodriques
1198
Donald Francis
Dorothy
Bernard
5/6/73
1 IT.
Brother -in -lav
Carlisle
Carli¢le.Sr.
1390
Judith White
George E.
Same
11/8/72
1 Yr.
Kelliher
KITTI6:DGE ROAD
-139.
Aquilido Rodriques
State Wide
Same
11/26/68
1 Yr.'
Maur Waxing
Company
376 Norman Murray Same Same
268 David lane
ODLW ROAD
824 Walton Darr Phyllis
Page
824 Duncan Mclain Henry Page
489 viner P,,¢. Inc. Same
R" = Renewed Thereafter
Same
Same
9/22/71 Not to exceed
1 Yr.
6/8/65 1 Yr. R"
6/8/65 1 Yr. R"
Comments
Open. Lev.
A
'Quote: This lot w
prey. Oct. by trailer
Open Dev.
A
A
A
A
Granted on behalf o!
Donald Francis
A
A
lend vas owed by
heirs of Frederick R.
Bridges
A
A„'
...Prior to expiration
date Mr.. Rodriques
Will see Bldg. Imp.”
A
A
Maurice Glidden
Brother -in -lav
A
SI I2
BY 12
I2. Factory
Present Mo. Eh.
Present
Permit
Board
Time Limit
Amer
Property
Issued
Approval
Set By
Owner
To
.late
Board
Ono BTREEf
424 Allen Sibley
Same
796 Thurman Jenkins,
*Jenkins,
Same
10/3/61
1 Yr. R'•
Jr.
Sr.
1111. Charles E. Robinson Richard L.
Richard L.
10/26/66
1 Yr. R--
"Parke
Parke
Parke
1331 Patrick Bouchard
- Axel Gran
Residuary Trust
1373 Everett E. Stanchfield
Marion Stanchfield
1383 Baynard Klein )
(Empty Rental) )
Baynard Klein )
1391 Bay
Klein. Auto Sales
-(Rental) )
1397 Hazel Blaisdell
John McLeod
2095 lacca Clark
Same
Same
3/19/74
PRSRAW WAD
736.m•taia Mower Sere Frank Ellie 9/27/60
SEVffilTiQi1R STAEET
32 Phillip J. Guerrette Some
R•• = Renewed Thereafter
ROME
When Present- Comments
Issued
R1
A R1 'Located on land of
Thurman Jenkins,Sr.
A A will set on a
cement slab"
A
A
Bath trailers and
A ) land owned by Chuck
A ) Klein Auto Sales,
Inc.
A
A A `Permit issued for
1179 Hend.'Ave.
until June, 1974
w/note to come to
Insp. Off. before
move to other loc.
1 Yr. Open Dev. . A. -
R1
Present W. Ho.
Amer
Present
Property
Owner
Permit
booed
To
Hoard
Approval
pea
Time Limit
get By
Bard
Veen
leaved
Present
Comments
STILLIATSR APHISR
764 Rear" Vere
Berme
Same
8/22/73
1 Yr. Reapply
A
A
Trailer empty.
U31 Rdetwrd Parker
Robert. M.
Sane
4/16/68
-
A
A
Parker, Jr.
1164 Alan Bartlett
sane
Sae
6/30/70
1 Yr. ROe
A
A
1176 Koran Gardner
Same
A
877 New Ragland Oxygen
Same
C2
Office Trailer.
HNION.8TREET
1670 Harvey Sprague, Jr.
Same
Hamvey R.
6/23/70
1 Ir. R^
A
A
Sprague
1802 Ronald Tovier
Same
Sue
12/22/70
-
A
A
1801 Craig R. McPherson
Rrneet A.
game
6/29/71
Net to exceed
A
A
milli"
1 Year
1971 grain P. McTigue
May L.
A
Morrison
R•• = Renewed ITereefter