News Talk 94.1/AM 1600 Where The Upper Cumberland Talks
The Cookeville Planning Commission removed three amendments from an ordinance Monday night concerning RVs in mobile home parks and sent the rule back to City Council.
The ordinance would cover existing mobile home parks across the city, not governed by current zoning. Council made suggestions about changes to the rules and sent the ordinance back to the planning commission for study. One of the amendments removed would have put an 180-day time limit on RVs staying in mobile home parks. Commissioner Bob Faulhaber said the original concern of these RVs becoming an eyesore over time is covered by a “junked vehicle” provision added to the proposal.
“I still think that, again, the junked vehicle provision address a lot of concerns that some of the city council had,” Faulhaber said. “You know, I don’t think anybody wants us to see these things fall into disrepair right, and that’s what’s happened with some of them thus far. Hopefully, this junked vehicle provision in here would prevent that.”
The commission removed two other provisions of the recommended ordinance. Amendment d would not allow any additional density to be added to mobile home parks. Amendment e would not allow underpinning or porches attached to RVs. The code now just requires the Chief Building Official to confirm no codes are violated, remain in operable condition and not be considered a “junked vehicle”.
Junked vehicle is defined in the ordinance as any vehicle which is inoperative or reasonably appears inoperative, wrecked, dismantled or discarded.
The 180-day limit on the RVs was an amendment that concerned mobile park operators at the meeting.
“Right now you got a 180-day time frame,” Custom Homes’ Aaron Bernhardt said. “Does that mean the tenant has to move out and move back in in 180 days? Or does that mean the travel trailer has to move for 180 days. I guess I was just wondering is the tenant going to have to move every month, every year. I didn’t know to what extent you are taking this.”
The city council sent the recommended ordinance back to the planning commission last month over concerns of unintended effects. The planning commission unanimously voted to approve the recommendation to the city council and now the ordinance is on it way back to the City Council for consideration.
The city attorney reviewed the changes and found them to be satisfactory.
“The information from the city attorney is in his opinion we could do this, but does that necessarily mean we have to do this or should,” Commissioner Member Jim Cobb said. “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”
