Ramsey files bill to expand manufactured housing

Here’s an excerpt from the Asheville Citizen-Times article:

A bill sponsored by state Rep. Nathan Ramsey would strip North Carolina counties of their ability to restrict where manufactured housing can be located.

The Buncombe County Republican said he introduced the measure to increase the supply of affordable housing. Current zoning ordinances in Buncombe and some other counties don’t allow new manufactured housing in some residential areas. …

The bill says that counties cannot adopt or enforce zoning regulations that exclude manufactured homes from being located on individual lots in areas zoned for single-family residential use.

The proposed law would make an exception for historic districts “where uniform aesthetic and design standards are imposed or in any other area where the county has a compelling interest in preserving aesthetic and design standards.”

About Jake Frankel
Jake Frankel is an award-winning journalist who enjoys covering a wide range of topics, from politics and government to business, education and entertainment.

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

0 thoughts on “Ramsey files bill to expand manufactured housing

  1. Meiling Dai

    There is a need for this bill (H769 Zoning/limit Manufactured Home Restrictions). People who own an individual lot and want to put a manufactured home on it for a “loved one” (mother/father/child/relative) are prevented from doing so due to zoning restrictions. Manufactured homes in today’s world are not the stereotypic rundown, unattractive and depreciating structures people imagine them to be. Manufactured homes are factory built and inspected by a HUD inspector onsite. They are generally built stronger than a site built home and cheaper per square foot due to not having to deal with weather and labor delay problems. You can’t distinguish them from site built homes because they have pitched roofs and equivalent exterior/interior designs. House bill 769 is long overdue for many.

  2. toestring

    Manufactured homes (meaning mobile homes which are distinct from modular homes) are not inspected onsite by HUD inpsectors. Rather, the installation is inspected by the building inspection department having jurrisdiction for a county or municipality. The issue, largely, is roof pitch and underpinning. Most manufactured homes have a roof pitch of 2 and 1/2 feet in 12. Most site built (or stick-built) and modular homes have a minimum (by building code) roof pitch of 5/12. Hence a noticeable difference. The lower pitch of a mobile home is particularly troublesome when the roofing is comprised of shingles as the lower pitch makes the shingles more prone to lift in wind and allows greater opportunity for rain water to be driven and/or seep under the shingles casuing damage to the subroof and interior of the unit. Most site built homes have a masonry enclosed underpinning foundation). Many mobile homes are underpinned with vinyl skirting which is easily damaged and/or blown away — and often not replaced.

    This bill is a prime example of striving to do better by lowering standards. Mandating a 5/12 roof pitch and masory underpinning for double-wide mobile homes would be a great modification to this bill.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.