Great Barrington — There’s a general consensus in town: Great Barrington needs more affordable housing.
More homes. More apartments. More accessory dwelling units. More tiny homes.
Members of the Affordable Housing Trust want to add another living option to that laundry list — manufactured homes.
Currently, Great Barrington allows manufactured homes, or mobile homes, for a maximum of 60 days out of the year, except in acute circumstances in which the limit can be extended up to 12 months by special permit.
Some trust members view the language as “unnecessarily restrictive,” and have asked the Planning Board to remove it from the zoning bylaw.
Doing so would allow town officials to consider manufactured homes on a case-by-case basis, rather than categorically limiting them, said trust member Joseph Method. He also hopes it could spur the development of accessory dwelling units, a tool the town and state think could ease the housing crisis.
But some trust and Planning Board members aren’t convinced manufactured homes are a solution — and have questions about quality, size and cost to heat and cool.
The Planning Board is exploring the trust’s suggestions. Members have not yet decided whether to put forward a zoning change at the annual town meeting in May, said board chair Brandee Nelson.
WHAT ARE MANUFACTURED HOMES?
Manufactured homes, long called mobile homes, are pre-built in a factory and feature a permanent chassis, giving them a mobility that modular and stick-built houses don’t share.
Early on in its history, the mobile home was inhabited only on the occasional camping trip. Over time, the trailers’ use expanded to year-round living, first for itinerant workers, than for people who lost their homes and jobs during the Depression and later for defense workers in WWII.
Mobile homes weren’t just movable — they were also affordable and quick to build.
As their popularity grew, so did their size. Which meant that mobile homes relocated far less often and increasingly appealed to people in need of low-cost housing.
For years, mobile homes were classified as vehicles rather than housing, which allowed manufacturers to avoid onerous building regulations and often resulted in mobile homes being built with lighter and cheaper materials.
In 1976, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development stepped in, setting federal standards for mobile home safety and construction. The code distinguished new builds from mobile homes dating before 1976, and gave them a new name — manufactured homes.
Today manufactured homes come in a wide range of styles and sizes. They continue to feature a permanent chassis, but many do not move once installed.
AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING SOLUTION?
Method approaches the housing crisis as a market problem — “I’m interested in supply side solutions,” Method said.
Manufactured homes caught his attention as a low-cost strategy to grow the town’s housing stock.
“When we talk about creating new units we’re happy with two units. We [the Affordable Housing Trust] will throw money to keep two units affordable,” said Method. “So I would be happy if there were 10 mobile homes that were created because of this.”
In a letter dated March 19, the Affordable Housing Trust asked the Planning Board to consider removing Section 8.6 from the zoning bylaw, as manufactured homes are already limited to specific zones and require special permits.
Section 8.6 currently groups mobile homes with trailers and recreational vehicles, all of which are allowed for a maximum of 60 days in any 12 month period. In hardship cases, that limit can be extended up to 12 months by special permit.
The section’s language is “unnecessarily restrictive” and conflates manufactured homes with recreational vehicles, the latter of which can have a motor and are not intended for residential or permanent living, said Method.
Fred Clark, the co-chair of the Affordable Housing Trust, cast one abstaining vote on making that suggestion.
Clark told The Eagle he had not researched manufactured homes in depth enough to have an informed opinion.
Some Planning Board members are also still making up their minds about manufactured homes.
“Right now I’m not opposed to amending the bylaw to allow mobile homes as accessory dwelling units as long as we can feel comfortable with the size and quality issues,” said board member Malcolm Fick.
Quality and size are the main concerns among board members.
Jonathan Hankin said the building and energy standards for manufactured homes are lower than standards for their modular and stick-built counterparts, and that their size isn’t conducive to being installed on the same property as a primary dwelling.
“It’s an interim housing solution and I think it’s a terrible idea,” said Hankin.
While manufactured homes are governed by the HUD Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, they are not required to follow state and local building codes like modular and stick-built homes are. That can lead to some discrepancies, Hankin said.
“If we’re going to provide housing for people, I think we need to provide the best quality housing we can,” said Hankin.
In 2004, HUD conducted a study of manufactured housing and found that owned manufactured homes were perceived to be higher quality than rental units. The study also found that structural quality of manufactured housing did not deteriorate more over time than that of stick-built housing.
Nelson shares Hankin’s concern about size.
“Our accessory dwelling unit legislation has specific square footage requirements and we are not sure if mobile homes, which come as a pre-manufactured unit, can meet those square footage requirements,” said Nelson.
Clayton Homes, a company that builds manufactured homes, said single section homes can range from 14 by 56 feet to 18 by 80 feet — or about 784 to 1,440 square feet.
“This won’t change anything because no one’s going to put a 70-foot long structure in their backyard,” said Hankin.
The proposed changes would also require significant community education and outreach, Nelson said.
“You have to make sure that — because we’d take this to town meeting — that the community has a chance to understand what’s being proposed,” Nelson said.