Commission asks staff to draft text amendment to allow manufactured homes in RSF-40 with RSF-30 conditions

The York County Planning Commission on May 11 voted to direct planning staff to draft a text amendment that would allow manufactured homes in the RSF-40 zoning district, using the same design standards currently required in RSF-30.

Diane, a planning staff member, gave a detailed overview distinguishing manufactured homes (governed by the HUD code), modular homes (governed by the South Carolina building code) and site-built homes. Diane told the commission RSF-40 and RSF-30 have nearly identical dimensional standards—lot width, setbacks and impervious surface rules—except RSF-40 has a larger minimum lot size (40,000 square feet versus 30,000) and currently prohibits manufactured homes. "The first one is manufactured home. That's constructed off-site and then brought to the site that's governed by the HUD code," Diane said in explaining the difference.

Staff provided parcel counts to gauge potential effect: roughly 17,458 RSF-40 parcels countywide, about 13,000 of those in platted subdivisions (many with restrictive covenants), and about 4,000 in non-platted areas. Diane said only about 314 non-platted parcels appear vacant and that roughly 700 platted parcels were described as vacant in staff remarks; she cautioned these figures are estimates. That data led staff to conclude a relatively small subset of RSF-40 parcels could be directly affected if covenants do not prohibit manufactured homes.

Commissioners raised technical and policy questions: whether septic fields and setbacks in concept site plans would be permitted (staff said concept plans are illustrative and final compliance is decided in review), how restrictive covenants in platted subdivisions would block a change (staff noted covenants often preclude manufactured homes and staff cannot override private covenants), and whether floodplain rules supersede local siting requirements. A commissioner pointed to the manufactured-home design section that references floodplain management and said those floodplain rules would take precedence when applicable.

After discussion, Commissioner S4 moved—and S5 seconded—to "initiate the text amendment to do this with the same conditions that are in RSF 30." The chair clarified that the motion authorizes staff to write a staff report and draft ordinance language, not to adopt a code change at that meeting. The motion passed by voice vote. Planning staff said they will return with a written recommendation and draft language at a subsequent meeting for further consideration and public notice.