ÀÏ˾»úÖ±²¥

|Photo by Emma Delk| Moundsville City Manager Rick Healy at Tuesday's council meeting.

The Moundsville City Council did not complete the motion for City Attorney Thomas White to draft a revision to the city’s Manufactured Homes, Zoning, and Installation Requirements Ordinance to permit double-wide manufactured homes in city limits during Tuesday’s meeting.

The city has not allowed any type of manufactured home within city limits since 2017. However, this year, two single-wide manufactured homes were allowed on Poplar Avenue due to a mistake in the city’s housing approval process.

When the installation of the two single-wides was brought to the city council’s attention during a July 9 Moundsville City Council Policy Subcommittee meeting, it sparked a discussion amongst council members regarding whether manufactured homes should be permitted in the city.

The subcommittee discussions centered on permitting single- and double-wide manufactured homes or only double-wides within city limits. Single-wide manufactured homes are the size of a trailer. Double-wide manufactured homes are twice the size of a single-wide and more similar in appearance to a traditional house.

At an Oct. 8 policy subcommittee meeting, City Attorney Thomas White divided manufactured homes into two categories apart from single- and double-wide. He outlined “type one” manufactured homes, which are assembled on a site and anchored to a foundation and do not include “pre-packaged” homes that are “hauled in on wheels and set on the ground.”

“Type two” consists of trailers, which are not prohibited anywhere in the city except the Moundsville Mobile Home Park.

Council members Ginger DeWitt and Brianna Hickman have voiced their support for allowing both types in the city during policy subcommittee discussions. DeWitt and Hickman cited that allowing more housing options in the area would attract more people to the city.

Council members in opposition to allowing single-wides cited those living in areas that do not permit mobile homes would not want one to be allowed to be constructed next to their house.

During the Oct. 8 policy subcommittee meeting, the council conducted a straw poll to determine whether they would support a revision to the ordinance allowing double-wide but not single-wide manufactured homes in the city. The council voted 5-2 in favor of the revision, with DeWitt and Hickman opposed.

White outlined his draft for the ordinance revision at Tuesday’s council meeting. The revision allows double-wide manufactured homes to be submitted to the city’s zoning board for approval as a “conditional use.” White noted that the ordinance included “a whole list” of qualifications that the double-wides would have to meet to be allowed within city limits, including being built on a solid, permanent foundation. The revision does not permit single-wides.

After White presented the revision, the motion for White to draft the revision failed as no council member seconded it. Mayor Wood-Shaw said the ordinance would “stay as it is,” meaning no manufactured homes, single or double-wide, would be allowed within city limits.

During other items to be discussed by the council, Hickman said she was “a little confused with the conversations around the manufactured home zoning requirements.” She motioned for the revision to be returned to the policy subcommittee for reconsideration. DeWitt seconded the motion.

“We wanted to move this forward, so I’m curious why we decided not to and what those additional specifications we can add to that ordinance, whether that might be changed,” Hickman said. “The conversation we had last Tuesday (at the policy subcommittee meeting) does not reflect what happened earlier today.”

DeWitt added the subcommittee should also consider whether a property owner with a “very old” single-wide could replace it with another single-wide under the current ordinance.

“This is why I wish someone would have at least seconded the motion for discussion, so we could have heard what everyone was thinking about [regarding the ordinance revision] at this time, and then we could have taken a vote,” Wood-Shaw said. “It sounds like we will be able to do that since Brianna (Hickman) moved to take the discussion back to the policy committee.”

Council members voted unanimously in approval of revisiting the revision to the ordinance at the policy subcommittee.