By NICOLE CARTRETTE

One local land developer may be fined, have his license revoked or be required to post a bond until three of his parks are brought into compliance with a 1997 mobile home park ordinance.

It is now up to the county building inspections department, planning department, tax department, environmental health and county attorney to decide if Jerome Rooks will face penalties or be permitted to record three mobile home subdivision plats drawn between May 1999 and August 2000. The planning board voted unanimously Thursday to table the matter and let the five departments try to reach an agreement with Rooks over three plats he failed to record years ago.

Private roads in all three subdivisions do not meet ordinance requirements, are not the proper width and have drainage problems, County Planner Stevie Cox told the board. Junk cars, abandoned trailers and high grass were also mentioned.

Although the ordinance was adopted before the plats were drawn, Rooks doesn’t think he should be required to come into compliance with the rules.

“This was approved by what the county had in place at that time,” Rooks said, adding that there was no planner or planning board. “The ones enforcing it said it met them all.”

J.B. Evans, planning board chairman, said he sympathized with Rooks but could not ignore the ordinance. “If it is supposed to be done, I am going to say you have to do it,” Evans said. “We are here to enforce what the county has on paper.”

“If your mother lived in lot 17, what would you want her to have for emergency services?” board member Bill Ashley questioned Rooks about the condition of the road.

“Roads have carried people out of there for seven or eight years with no problems,” Rooks said. “Those roads are not that bad.”

Board member Al Leonard asked Rooks if he got a permit to construct the parks as required by the ordinance.

“I’m not sure,” Rooks answered. “They were trying to go by the ordinance and I was trying to go by it. If I knew these final two maps were not recorded, I would have done it.

“This is something that is stressing me out –it is getting real hard to develop land.”

Rooks explained that he agrees junked cars are unsightly but developers can’t police subdivisions of land with sales contracts in place and some lots deeded. “A mobile home park guy who owns the land has complete control,” Rooks said, adding that in his situation he can’t go back and rewrite restrictions. “It’s hard to go back and undo what’s done. I can’t.”

“You’ve got to have restrictions, you are still the major owner,” board member Gene Wilson said.

“If I ever do another one, there will be,” Rooks responded, adding that upgrading the roads would be very costly and not an expense he included in his selling price. “I can’t go up on the price.”

Board members asked if Rooks had a copy of the ordinance when the subdivisions were being drawn. He said he had the 1997 ordinance, tried to follow it, and again insisted that he did what the county required him to do at that time.

“Would any buyers be given a certificate of occupancy, if I didn’t?” Rooks asked.

“You have a lot of evidence on your side,” Wilson said, adding that there are numerous parks throughout the county that have just as many or more problems.

James Register, a board member and land developer himself, told Rooks he hoped he was not disheartened.

Rooks said he was disgusted with the process. “It is extremely hard to do this and collect money from low income people. I won’t be doing another one –I wish I didn’t have these.”

Ashley asked, “Who do we owe it to, the developer or the homeowner?”

“They made this ordinance and turned around and put it on a shelf,” Evans said.

The three subdivisions fall under the mobile home park ordinance because they are a division of land in three or more lots for manufactured or mobile homes. The Red Hill Subdivison off Red Hill Road, and Pleasant Hill Subdivisions Phase I and II, with a total of 81 lots off Midway Drive are the plats in question. Rooks said he believed one of the plats has been recorded. A search of the register of deed’s office turned up records of a subdivision plat recorded by Rooks between 1997 and 1999, identified as a 701 North subdivision with 44 lots.

The ordinance applies to new manufactured home parks and the alteration or expansion of existing parks in the county. A tract of land maintained for the purpose of renting, leasing or selling for private ownership a space where three or more manufactured or mobile homes will be used for habitation is considered to be a mobile home park. No alterations can be made until approval has been granted by the planning board.

The board may grant a variance when strict compliance could result in an undue hardship.

Mobile home parks existing prior to the adopted ordinance had until January of 1998 to comply with providing street names, signs, a solid waste disposal plan and registering with the tax office, health department, building inspections and obtaining a business license.

A disclosure of who is responsible for road upkeep is required for existing parks and new parks. The building inspections department will handle road complaints. “The Chief Building Inspector will have the authority to withhold future permits to Manufactured/Mobile home Park Owners where roads create emergency and safety vehicle access hazards,” the ordinance states.

Cox revised the mobile home park ordinance this year, but suggested that the board focus on the subdivision ordinance for now and hold off on any changes to the park ordinance. Several public hearings have been held on the proposed subdivision ordinance but commissioners have not voted on it. A joint meeting between the board of commissioners and planning board is planned for Sept. 25. Board members said the mobile home park ordinance would not be discussed.