PAPERLESS PACKET

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 9:00 AM City Hall Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 19, 2016 Meeting OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-16-15 Property at 823 East Loockerman Street. Georgia Heininger-Trader has appealed the decision of the City Planner to the Board of Adjustment regarding the issuance of Building Permit #15-1192 on October 14, 2015 and the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy on December 2, 2015 associated with the permitting and placement of a manufactured home as a one-family detached dwelling unit on the property at 823 East Loockerman Street. Property Address: 823 East Loockerman Dover. Subject property is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-077.06-02-55.00-000. The current property owner of record is Brenda Redlich. ADJOURN 29 Del.C. § 10004(e)(2) THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES October 19, 2016 A Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 9:03 A.M. with Chairman Sheth presiding. Members present were Chairman Sheth, Mr. Hufnal, Mr. Keller and Colonel Ericson. Mr. Senato was absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Townshend, Mrs. Purnell, Mr. Diaz, Mr. Cook and City Solicitor Nick Rodriguez. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hufnal moved to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Keller and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Mr. Keller moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 21, 2016 with the necessary corrections, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development stated that the meeting today will be conducted in accordance with the agenda. There are three (3) agenda items: One (1) deferred item under Old Business, and one (1) new item under New Business. The application file will be read, and the floor will be opened for questions of the applicant by the Board and for public testimony. If the Board needs to consult the City Solicitor, they will recess to discuss legal matters. If the applicant must leave, they can contact the Planning Office at 736-7196 to learn of the Board’s decision. A formal notice of the decision will be mailed to the applicants. Approved variances expire after one year if the approved project has not commenced. All public notice for the new application on this agenda was completed in accordance with code requirements. The meeting agenda was posted in accordance with Freedom of Information Act requirements. Mrs. Townshend stated that Mr. Ede Ide was present on behalf of the applicant. The ordinance to address the height and the corridor overlay zone currently remains tabled at the City Council level. City Council has not acted on the ordinance and the applicant was notified of today’s hearing and that the Board was interested in taking action. Responding to Chairman Sheth’s question whether the application was tabled by City Council, Mrs. Townshend replied yes. Responding to Chairman Sheth’s question whether the Board would like to discuss the application at the current time or wait until final decision has been made by City Council and to Colonel

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 19, 2016 Ericson’s question if the Board decided one way or the other that the City Council decision would still supersede whatever the Board decides. Mr. Rodriguez replied that it would only affect the ordinance, and would not have anything to do with this particular case. The last time the Board wanted to take Final Action on the case it was indicated in the September meeting minutes that this would take place at the October 19, 2016 meeting. It was also mentioned that notice would be given to the applicant. The application was tabled by Mr. Keller’s motion 4-0 and that is the current status. OLD BUSINESS Applicant #V-16-06 1310-1324 Forrest Avenue. Margaret H. Johnson has requested a variance from the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Article 3 §27.66 pertaining to the maximum allowed height of buildings located with the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Subject property is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1. Tax Parcels are ED-05-076.10-01-01.00- 000, ED-05-076.10-01-02.00-000, ED-05-076.10-01-03.00-000, ED-05-076.10-01-04.00-000, ED-05-076.10-01-04.01-000. The owner of record is Margaret H. Johnson. At its meeting of June 15, 2016 the Board of Adjustment conducted a public hearing but deferred action. There are no updates on application V-16-06 and it will continue to be deferred. City Council is considering a text amendment and this application will ultimately be decided or withdrawn depending on the path of the text amendment. The applicant has been notified that Final Action will be taken today. Exhibits for the Record: Staff report and plans previously submitted by the applicant. Legal Notice was published in the DSN - on October 9, 2016. The public was notified in accordance with regulations. Representative: Mr. Edward H. Ide III, President of i3a Consulting Engineering Firm. Mr. Edward H. Ide was sworn in by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Ide testified that he was present on behalf of the owner Margaret H. Johnson to respectively ask that the application again be tabled. Previous discussions with the owner had been to await City Council’s decision regarding revisions to the Corridor Overlay Zone. The last time he was present there was some discussion of perhaps compromising regarding the height of the building. The applicant is seeking a 4-story building and currently he has been unable to contact the owner to discuss whether or not he could make a decision today versus waiting on a decision from City Council. He was not in a great position to speak on behalf of the owner because he has not had the opportunity to talk with her prior to this morning. Again, he is asking that the application be tabled. Responding to Chairman Sheth’s question that the applicant was requesting that no decision be made today, Mr. Ide replied yes, that is correct. His fear is if the application is denied, the applicant would have to wait a year to be heard again. 2

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 19, 2016 Mr. Keller stated that last month three (3) options were discussed: withdrawal of the application, make an appearance and proceed with and abide by the results of the Board of Adjustment decision, or request a deferral which was not considered, but is certainly an option. It was discussed that in the event of a denial the applicant would be prevented from reappearing for a period of one year for the same application. A withdrawal would allow the applicant to reapply. Mr. Ide stated if the correct method at this point for the applicant would be to withdraw the application then they would go with that option. There are many things to consider with the Exceptional Practical Difficulty that the owner faces and they are not sure of City Council’s decision regarding the zone changes and his inability to get in contact with the owner in enough time to come up with an actual decision if the application was going to be heard today. Responding to Chairman Sheth’s question whether Mr. Ide was authorized to withdraw the application, Mr. Ide replied he would assume that he is authorized to withdraw the application. Mr. Keller asked for confirmation of that process, and if in fact there was a withdrawal of the application, there would be nothing that would prevent the applicant from reappearing in a subsequent variance application. Mrs. Townshend replied that is correct. Colonel Ericson stated that it would make sense that the Board should avoid a conflict between the Board of Adjustment and City Council. The Board of Adjustment should let City Council do their work and the Board will do their work. Responding to Colonel Ericson’s question whether the application should be withdrawn or tabled indefinitely. Mr. Rodriguez replied that withdrawing the application would be fine. A new application would need to be submitted and there would be no penalty of a year. Mr. Ide stated that if it is unlikely that the application would be tabled for another month then he would respectively request that the application be withdrawn. Mr. Keller moved to accept the applicant’s request to withdraw application V-16-06. The motion was seconded by Colonel Ericson and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-16-13 640 South Governors Avenue. William F. Holden, Sr. and Carolie C. Holden on behalf of Holden Leasing LLC has requested a variance from the requirements of Article 5 §4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the number of permitted wall signs for property located on an Urban Minor Arterial in order to allow the installation of a wall sign on the south side of the building. Subject property is zoned C-3 (Service Commercial Zone). Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.13- 01-40.00-000. The owner of record Holden Leasing LLC. Exhibits for the Record: Staff Report and plans submitted by the applicant. Legal Notice was published in the Delaware State News – on October 9, 2016. The public was notified in accordance with regulations. 3

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 19, 2016 Mr. Cook gave a brief overview of the application. Representative: Mr. William F. Holden Sr., Holden Dodge Mr. William F. Holden Sr. was sworn in by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Holden testified that the application was pretty much self-explanatory. The building and business has been located at this address since 1945. In the past it has had more square footage of signage than what exists today. When remodeling was done in 2009-2011 sign area was taken down than what they put back up. The business had no real desire to put the proposed signage back up until the business sought certification as an express lane dealer (faster service for oil changes, tire rotation, etc.) and that is one of the requirements. In order comply with program requirements, they first need the sign. Second, the business needs the sign as a marketing tool to inform the public that express lane service is available at this location. His son photographed the surrounding area in great detail. It is a mixed use area and the business next door is grandfathered legal nonconforming with multiple signs on the front and back. The business feels that the sign will be in good taste same as the existing signs. He would respectfully request approval of the variance. Responding to Chairman Sheth’s question whether the requirement was part of Chrysler franchise, Mr. Holden replied that it was required as part of the service agreement. You do not have to be an express lane dealer, but it is financially beneficial for them to be one. As stated in in the application it could amount to additional revenue of up to $6000 per month just in this one area of their business. Since they are not on the main thoroughfare the business needs every aspect of the business that is available to them. Mr. Holden state it would be behoove them to be an express lane dealer, and in order to be one they are required to have this sign. Referencing Exhibit B, a photo rendering of the proposed signage, Mr. Keller asked about the small white sign to the left of the express lane sign. Mr. Holden replied that the City treated that sign as a campus sign which directs the customer to a reception and waiting area. Mr. Keller also asked about the sign at the bottom and asked if it was a directional indicator, Mr. Holden replied yes it was a directional indicator and not a marketing sign. Mr. Cook stated that the sign is permitted and was considered a directional sign previously, although it would not meet exactly meet our directional sign definition today, but it is just to identify that door (service/parts and body shop). Chairman Sheth opened the public hearing. Chairman Sheth closed the public hearing after seeing no one wishing to speak. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest and there was none. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any additional correspondence for the record. There was none. 4

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 19, 2016 Mr. Hufnal moved to approve application V-16-13 based upon the testimony given today by the applicant and based on the excellent Staff Report. Both signs are in character with the use of the automobile dealership property. It is not out of character with the numerous types of signage found on the surrounding properties. While the number of signs did exceed the permitted amount as stated by Mr. Cook, the sign is less than 5% of the wall area and less than 15% allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Colonel Ericson and was unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. Applicant #V-16-14 277-293 N DuPont Highway. Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless has applied to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the requirements of Article 4 §4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to maximum permitted building height in order to allow construction of a 125 foot telecommunications monopole and associated facilities. Subject property is zoned SC-2 (Community Shopping Center Zone). Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.14-01-03.01-000. The owner of record is MDR Dover, LP. Exhibits for the Record: Staff Report and plans submitted by the applicant. Legal Notice was published in the Delaware State News – on October 9, 2016. The public was notified in accordance with regulations. Mr. Cook gave a brief overview of the application. Responding to Colonel Ericson’s question regarding a memo from 1999 whether it was written by Mr. Rodriguez that stipulates that federal laws supersedes local Zoning Ordinance when it comes to the height of the pole, Mr. Cook replied that no. It was an internal memo that was written by former Planning Director Mr. Anthony DePrima giving guidance on how the city interprets the zoning code in terms of where cell towers are allowed. It states that cell towers are considered buildings under the definition in the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the zoning regulations for zoning district where they are being constructed, and must comply with height requirements of that zone or apply for a variance for height. The memo also gives guidance on the Site Development Plan approval process as to whether it can be done administratively or if it has to go before the Planning Commission, based on the amount of site disturbance. Cell towers within residential districts would be required to be a Conditional Use through the Planning Commission. Responding to Colonel Ericson’s question if he had Mr. Rodriguez letter on file, Mr. Cook questioned whether it was for one of the previous cases, Colonel Ericson replied yes, roughly six years ago and suggested that Mr. Cook obtain a copy for guidance on legal perspectives of what is being faced and what should be considered. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the Board was okay with the application and with Mr. Cook’s overview of the application. He stated that it was a very good presentation by Mr. Cook. Representative: Mr. Jonathan Jordan, Attorney on behalf of Verizon Wireless. Mr. Jordan mentioned that Verizon did something that he had never seen before, particularly 5

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 19, 2016 since they do not know of any opposition to this project, but Mr. Dugan, the radio frequency consultant working with Verizon Wireless internal radio frequency department, in preparing for this hearing and reports to justify the height of the tower, discovered that they could actually drop the height by approximately 20 feet. Today they are presenting for a tower that is approximately 101 feet tall with a 4-foot lighting rod. They drilled down to the minimum height that they could live with on this site. Exhibits 1. A letter from the land owner authorizing them to proceed with the application. 2. FCC licenses held by Verizon Wireless. 3. Curriculum detailed by Paul Dugan. 4. Radiofrequency Design of Proposed Communications Facility 5. RF Safety FCC Compliance of Proposed Communications Facility 6. Non-Interference Certification of Proposed Communications Facility 7. FAA Screening Certification of Proposed Communications Facility 8. Proposed Cell Tower Mr. Paul Dugan was sworn in by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Jordan mentioned that the radio frequency report prepared by Mr. Dugan talks about the site selection process, why it is needed in this particular location at the requested height. Mr. Dugan stated that the radio frequency design report explains the objectives of the proposed facility, the reason Verizon Wireless needs the facility at this particular location, and the height. The challenges for the radio frequency engineers is to keep up with the on-going demand for service in their service areas. In dense areas, Verizon needs more facilities of lower height in contrast to rural areas where there are fewer towers, but much taller structures in order to serve the subscriber base. The proposed area is a central eastern section of the City of Dover which is east of Silver Lake. It will serve in the dense commercial area of Route 13 and Route 1. It will also provide the residential areas with improved in-building coverage. In order to provide good in- building coverage you will need to have sufficient signals to penetrate walls not only for the homes, but also for commercial buildings. Questions/Answers Mr. Jordan – How did you pick this particular spot? Mr. Dugan – radio frequency engineers use a number of tools to determine where facilities are needed. They look at usages on the existing sites, coverage maps to determine existing service, and optimize existing facilities with antenna upgrades. This particular location was established as a target area in order for a new facility to be introduced to provide better service for subscribers. Mr. Jordan – Are you looking for a particular zone of coverage and was this site in that particular zone? Mr. Dugan – That is correct. This location is particularly suited to fulfill Verizon objectives for 6

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 19, 2016 improved coverage and capacity relief. Mr. Jordan – Why did you not locate on the west side of Route 13? Mr. Dugan – (Referring to the map) all of the existing Verizon sites on the east side of town are between Route 13 and Route 1 for a reason. The only exception is the water tank to the south is on the west side. You have better traffic distribution utilizing the three (3) sectors, improving capacity if you are between these heavily traveled roads. Being on the west side of Route 13 would not have the reach to Route 1 as you have on the east side of Route 13. Chairman Sheth – Would this have anything to do with the Firefly Festival or Nascar Race? Mr. Jordan – The activities increase traffic demand. Mr. Dugan – Verizon Wireless has put cell on wheels (temporarily facilities) just to keep up with some of the demand for some of the events. Mr. Jordan – Needing to be on the east side of Route 13 is there only one property that covers the target zone? Mr. Dugan – There is a large commercial property in the target area and he was not sure if that was the only property within the target area, but this is a suitable location. Mr. Jordan – Regarding the maximum height that could be used without coming before the Board of Adjustment, please explain why 75 feet does not work in this location? Mr. Dugan – The shorter the height the less the reach and coverage you will get from the site. Not only will it be less coverage, but also less in-building penetration in the proximity. There would also be less traffic relief provided to other facilities. There is a balance between getting the height that just meets objectives, but not too much. If there is too much height it is just as detrimental as not enough height because unnecessary interference is generated. Verizon Wireless was originally seeking a 121-foot monopole with a lightning rod to a total of 125 feet. He worked with the internal radio frequency engineer to establish the minimum. Seventy-Five feet (75 feet) is a bit too short to meet objectives. He was able to convince them that they could compromise the height a little to an approximate one-hundred-foot structure which would be the minimum for service objectives. Mr. Dugan – briefly discussed the safety evaluation of the proposed facility. The property will comply with FCC exposure limits and guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency and electromagnetic fields. Nowhere in the vicinity of the structure will you approach one percent. There are several hundreds of antennas below that are considered safe levels in the electromagnetic fields. Mr. Jordan – The testimony states that the site will comply with the FCC standards for electromagnetic safety? 7

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 19, 2016 Mr. Dugan – yes, by a significant margin. Mr. Jordan – Could you discuss the Non-Interference Certification. Mr. Dugan – The report discusses how the facility coexists in the community with no interference to other wireless service providers and other radio systems in the environment, whether wi-fi, residential, police, fire, EMS or anything that exists in the community. This facility will not generate any harmful interference with those systems. The antennas are elevated away from the other antennas in the environment, which are lower powered and have their own frequencies and would not generate any interference. Mr. Jordan – Could you discuss the FAA screening. Mr. Dugan – Whenever Verizon Wireless seeks to build a new structure or modify the height of an existing structure, engineers are asked to perform an FAA screening to determine if it meets the requirements to be filed with the FAA. There are two (2) on-line tools they use to make that determination: (1) Towair which has determined that the structure height does not meet the criteria to require filing with the FAA. The closest facility is Dover Air Force Base and it outlines the proximity of the runways, but it does not penetrate the slope test. (2) FAA Notice Criteria states that the proposed structure height meets the criteria to require filing with the FAA. However, he does not anticipate that it would require any lighting. It certainly will not be a problem at 100-feet based on the proximity and the height of the structure. It meets the criteria to be filed with the FAA, but he does not anticipate any hazard to air navigation. Determination will be issued by the FAA. Mr. Jordan – Summarizing the testimony he questioned whether the 101-foot tower with a 4-foot lighting rod is the minimum height necessary to provide reliable coverage and service to the territory that is being served by this proposed based station? Mr. Dugan – replied yes. Mr. Jordan – Questioned whether the Board had any questions for Mr. Dugan? Colonel Ericson – Asked if he could explain the red dot on the FAA drawing and if the red dot signified the tower location? Mr. Dugan - yes, the red dot is where the proposed structure is located. The zones that are shown are not actual runways, they are approach fields. Colonel Ericson stated that the approach fields are safety zones that should not have high structures. Mr. Dugan stated that if they are in that zone it does not mean that there is a problem, it just means that it requires filing with the FAA. The FAA wants to know that those structures exist. Mrs. Townshend stated that they are outside of the Airport Environment Overlay Zone (AEOZ) 8

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 19, 2016 and the Accident Potential Zone. Colonel Ericson- Questioned if the blue lines on the drawings represent the runways at Dover Airforce Base? Mrs. Townshend – They did not know what is on the exhibits. She questioned geographically where is this? Mr. Dugan – He believed that the blue lines represent the Dover Air Force Base. Colonel Ericson – Questioned if this was a zoned area where you cannot put the tower (AICUS)? Mrs. Townshend – This property is outside of such zone. Mr. Jordan stated that he received a letter of no objection from Dover Air Force Base when the tower was proposed at 125-feet. Mr. Hufnal – Regarding the height reduction to 105 feet from 125 feet, would new technology increase future towers, and would they be 105 feet also? Mr. Dugan- Verizon will never seek additional height at this location. If anything, the antennas height could be reduced in the future. At the current time this is the minimum height that Verizon needs to service the subscriber base. Mr. Hufnal – The Board approved a greater height in the past to cover the colleges north of Dover and Dover International Speedway for increased traffic (west of Route 13 and north of the speedway). Mrs. Townshend – Questioned if it was at the toll plaza? Mr. Hufnal – replied no, it was on College Road. Mrs. Townshend stated that a tower was also approved by the Board near the toll plaza. Mr. Jordan stated that in order to put the antennas at 100-feet which is what Mr. Dugan needs, they need 108-foot pole including the lightning rod. (To Mr. Dugan) Was the 100-feet antenna height determined on a site by site basis based on surrounding tree height, building height, and distance to the nearest antenna? Mr. Dugan – Absolutely, there are countless considerations to determine the height necessary to serve every location because each one is different in terms of demographics, buildings, vegetation, how much traffic, proximity to other facilities that are currently being served, etc. This is a building block to the existing facilities that are currently serving those subscribers. Mr. Keller – Questioned whether Mr. Dugan was called upon for radio frequency evaluations for other sites that are given consideration before selection, or do you somewhat whittle down a site 9

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 19, 2016 before you are called upon to give your radio frequency engineering evaluations. Mr. Dugan – Before he is called upon to perform his independent evaluation, the site candidates are evaluated by Verizon Wireless internal radio frequency engineer. They determine the suitability and evaluate each location independently to determine if it meets objectives such as the location, height, and whether they have to build new structure or use an existing structure. They prefer not to build a new structure if it is not necessary. Mr. Jordan stated that besides the radio frequency adequacy of a site there is also the question of would the landlord even rent the property. In the case of this particular shopping center, the location was in the center of the target area. Some other properties nearby, besides not having radio frequency suitability would still have the 75-foot height limitation of the zoning. Colonel Ericson – If you had another cell phone company such as AT&T and Sprint that would need more coverage could they lease or rent Verizon’s tower, do you work together, or would they need to have their own? Mr. Jordan – Yes, if we did not extend that courtesy to the others then they would not extend it to us. If AT&T wants to come to the Board and build a tower near this tower, the Board may ask did AT&T talk to Verizon about being on their tower. It has always been the case that Verizon shares the tower if possible. Mr. Keller – Upon completion of the project is there any system of security around those sites? Mr. Jordan - They have remote sensors and Mr. Nagorny can elaborate on it more. Mr. W. Jeffrey Nagorny, P.E. was sworn in by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Nagorny testified that the site is pretty good and this is a fence compound. All the major telecom carriers monitor these sites remotely 24/7. They have GPS antennas that are installed within the compound in their operation centers. If there is a power outage, a piece of equipment that is not functionally properly or something breaks down they are going to see it and depending on the severity of that particular incident they can dispatch technicians to the site either the next business day or immediately if it so requires. Questions/Answers Mr. Keller – How about intrusions, sabotage, damage to the LP tanks, generators, monopole, etc. Mr. Nagorny – We have a compound fence and at this point he is not aware of any of the carriers that he works for that actually include a video screen with their monitoring, but that is one of the reasons that we would have the fence around the compound. This would be similar to any other commercial facility that may have a generator or above ground tank. The tanks are certainly built to withstand at least what most folks might bring against them. Someone might come in with high power armor penetrating rifle he does not know if there is much they can do. The technicians visit the sites on average once a month. 10

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 19, 2016 Colonel Ericson: When the site review was done was there any other towers by cell phone vendors that would have met your needs if you had put your equipment on their tower. Mr. Nagorny – He cannot answer that question, but Mr. John Herriott who is the site acquisition manager from our firm who helped with the initial screening can answer the question. Mr. Nagorny – All the major carriers have master lease agreements among each other. Those legal documents are already in place. As stated by Mr. Jordan it makes business sense if a carrier has room on a tower and can lease the space and generate revenue. Some jurisdictions have provisions written in their telecom ordinance that require commercial cell tower builders and carriers to offer that possibility. The only instance that he is aware of where collocating was not available was a county-owned tower in Pennsylvania. The tower was for emergency services and they did not want as a rule to allow other persons (commercial carriers) to connect. Commercial carriers share towers on a regular basis. The sharing of towers can be seen as you drive. There are very few towers that have only one set of antennas. Usually there are two, three, or five different platforms on the tower. Mr. Jordan – There was a question about other structures such as a water tower that Verizon Wireless is already on, are there any other tall structures where we can collocate? When Mr. Dugan was speaking about the west side of the highway they had evaluated the Luther Towers building. None of the properties on that side of the road met their criteria for radio frequency sufficiency. Mr. John R. Herriott was sworn in by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Herriott testified that they considered other locations in the area and the closest structure to the subject property was Luther Towers at 70-feet. The tower was outlined on the exhibit. There is a private water tank south of Luther Towers on Route 13 that is too close to an existing Verizon Wireless water tank site. To the southeast there is a City of Dover water tank that he believes is too far away from the site. The City of Dover has not allowed additional carriers to be on the water tank. Mr. Jordan – Do you generally see governments who decide not to lease space on water tanks? Mr. Herriott – yes, it is 50/50. More of the larger utilities do not want the antennas on the tanks anymore because there is too much hassle and additional work and expense when they need paint the tanks and when the carriers need to do maintenance. Mr. Jordan stated that this concludes the initial presentation and move exhibits 1-9 into the record. Mr. Keller – Where is the connection for access or construction vehicle access on Z-1 to the site? Mr. Nagorny – There is actually a paved parking lot with parking spaces on the east side near the edge of the grass. It was probably not shown on the exhibit. 11

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 19, 2016 Mr. Keller – Noted that it was not shown and the only thing that was shaded that gave appearance to as to a paved way was an existing water easement. Chairman Sheth opened the public hearing. Ms. Ronda Oden was sworn in by Mr. Rodriguez. Ms. Oden testified that she lives in the neighborhood on Frear Drive and the back of their house faces the back of AC Moore. She can appreciate all the work that has been done by the City of Dover Staff in preparation for the zoning application. She is definitely not against progress and this is not a “in her back yard issue”, although the tower is almost in her back yard. She understands that this type of technology is needed. She and her family have concerns regarding transparency when it comes to Verizon. She was also concerned about health and safety of the neighborhood as well as construction and permits. She questioned the safety when the other companies utilize their cell phone towers does it change the radio frequency? Chairman Sheth informed Ms. Oden that she could express her concerns regarding construction at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jordan replied that every other carrier that comes in would need as their permitting process to come up with a report like Mr. Dugan and the information he gave previously. Mr. Dugan also testified that Verizon was already a fraction 1/100 of the maximum usage. Usually when you put in antennas close to 100-feet no human being gets close enough to those antennas to be affected. As a matter of fact, carrying a cell phone in your pocket has more exposure than living near a cell tower. Mr. Dugan agreed with Mr. Jordan and also mentioned that when you are substantially below 1% of what is established as a safety standard adding additional carriers that are elevated above the ground even if they are mounted between 60-100 feet will introduce low level signals, but will have no detrimental impact to the neighborhood or persons that exist in proximity to the antennas. Colonel Ericson mentioned that Ms. Oden seemed to be concerned about transparency. Could she be provided a copy of the study that was given to the Board so that she can better understand all of the work that has been put into the report and how you came to the conclusion. Mr. Dugan replied certainly he could provide Ms. Oden with a copy. Ms. Oden also questioned the cell phone towers being on the east side of the site and the vegetation. Chairman Sheth replied that the question was previously answer that the best place was selected and it will be approved if it meets city requirements and all procedures were followed. Mr. Cook stated that when the process goes through the Planning Commission there is a 12

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 19, 2016 landscaping requirement, but since the project has not been submitted for that process yet, that would be addressed at the time of the Planning Commission application. Colonel Ericson suggested and asked Mr. Dugan that if many people are worried about transparency if he could talk and answer questions with Ms. Oden after the meeting. Chairman Sheth closed the public hearing after seeing no one else wishing to speak. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any additional correspondence for the record. There was none. Mr. Cook stated that he and Ms. Oden had a conversation on Monday, October 17, 2016. She had similar questions that she proposed today at the hearing. In the conversation they discussed the process and today’s meeting and what the discussion would involve. Chairman Sheth stated that he received a letter but that was not a conflict with the Board of Adjustment. Responding to Mr. Keller’s request for clarification that the maximum height was 108 feet including the lightning rod opposed to the 125 feet that was on the application, Mr. Nagorny replied yes, the radiation center for the antennas that Verizon wanted was 100 feet. That is basically the actual middle of the antenna. With the lightning rod it would be 108 feet and without the lightning rod it would be 104-feet. Therefore, a 104-foot tower with a 4-foot lightning rod for a total of 108 feet. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest and there was none. Colonel Ericson moved to approve the area variance application V-16-14 noting that the requested height has been reduced by Verizon Wireless from 125-feet to 108-feet and based upon the testimony given and the documents provided. The motion was seconded by Mr. Keller and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. Colonel Ericson moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. Meeting adjourned at 10:26 A.M. Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 13

City of Dover Board of Adjustment November 16, 2016 V-16-15 Location: Property at 823 East Loockerman Street, Dover, Delaware ED-05-077.06-02-55.00-000 Current Property Owner: Brenda Redlich Present Zoning: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) Application Date: Appeal Received October 3, 2016 Request for November 16, 2016 Meeting Appeal Filed By: Georgia Heininger-Trader Appeal Requested: Appeal of the decision of the City Planner regarding the issuance of Building Permit #15-1192 on October 14, 2015 and the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy on December 2, 2015 associated with the permitting and placement of a manufactured home as a one- family detached dwelling unit on the property at 823 East Loockerman Street. Request for Appeal Georgia Heininger-Trader has filed an Appeal of a decision by the City Planner regarding the issuance of Building Permit #15-1192 on October 14, 2015 and the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy on December 2, 2015 associated with the permitting and placement of a manufactured home as a one-family detached dwelling unit on the property at 823 East Loockerman Street. Property Description The property is located on the north side of East Loockerman Street. The property was a vacant tract of land for a number of years until the request for development of the lot for residential use through the Building Permit process. The property at 823 East Loockerman Street and its surrounding neighboring properties are zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone); the R-8 zoning for the area dates to the 1960s. From aerial photographs (dating 1937-2012) residential development of this neighborhood begins in the 1950s. The property was part of an area annexed into the City Dover in August 1962 consisting of 1,170.25 acres of land which included the neighborhood areas of Morris Estates, Edgehill, Edgehill Acres, Capital Green, and Eastover Hills.

V-16-15 Appeal regarding Property at 823 East Loockerman Street Report to Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 4 Code Citations Procedures The Board of Adjustment procedures for Appeals are outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and within Delaware Code. See the following code citations. Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning, Article 9. Board of Adjustment: Section 2. Powers and duties: The board of adjustment shall have the powers and duties as specified in Delaware Code Annotated (22 Del. C. § 301 et seq.) and as articulated below: 2.2 Appeal of administrative order, requirement, decision, or determination. The board shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Appeals to the board may be made by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality affected by any decision of an administrative officer. Zoning Ordinance, Article 9 §3 further outlines the procedures for both variances and appeals. Appeals are subject to a Public Hearing before the Board of Adjustment which must be noticed by publication in the newspaper and by mailed notice to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. The Appeal must be filed in writing on prescribed forms and is subject to a filing fee. It is noted that this fee may be returned to the applicant (Zoning Ordinance, Article 9 §3.4) under certain provisions: Article 9 §3.4 The board of adjustment may, in its discretion, return to the applicant part or all of the fee paid by him in the event that his appeal under section 2.2 Appeal of administrative order, requirement, decision, or determination hereof is partially or wholly successful. The Appeal (written application and submission items) as filed shall consist of the following per the Zoning Ordinance, Article 9 §3.5: Article 9 §3.5 Each variance application or appeal shall fully set forth the circumstances of the case. Every variance application or appeal shall refer to the specific provision of the ordinance involved, and shall exactly set forth, as the case may be, the interpretation that is claimed, the details of the variance that is applied for and the grounds on which it is claimed that the same should be granted.  A copy of the Appeal as filed by the Appellant (Georgia Heininger-Trader) is attached as Exhibits 1A, 1B and 1C. o Exhibit 1A – Application to Board of Adjustment for Appeal o Exhibit 1B – Letter on behalf of the Appellant (Georgia Heininger-Trader) dated October 3, 2016 from Eric M. Andersen with Attachment (Exhibit 1C) o Exhibit IC – Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware C.A. No. 11741- VCN, Georgia Heininger-Trader vs. Betty J. Henry, Robert D. Henry, Brenda Redlich, City of Dover and CMH Homes, Inc.: Second Amended Class Action Compliance Document with attached Exhibits A-G

V-16-15 Appeal regarding Property at 823 East Loockerman Street Report to Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 4 The provisions of Delaware Code (22 Del. C. § 301) also note a procedure for Appeals: 22 Del. C. §324 Appeals to board. Appeals to the board of adjustment may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality affected by any decision of the administrative officer. Such appeal shall be taken within a reasonable time as provided by the rules of the board by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with the board a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken.  Copies of materials from the actions of the City Planner (and her designees) to issue the Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy are attached as Exhibits 2A through 2-C. o Exhibit 2A – Building Permit Application #15-1192 with application submission attachments o Exhibit 2B – Building Permit #15-1192 issued on October 14, 2015 o Exhibit 2C – Certificate of Occupancy issued on December 2, 2015 with attachments Action by the Board of Adjustment It is the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide the Appeal where it has been alleged that the determination of the administrative official was in error. This Appeal is of a decision by the City Planner regarding the issuance of Building Permit #15-1192 on October 14, 2015 and the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy on December 2, 2015 associated with the permitting and placement of a manufactured home as a one-family detached dwelling unit on the property at 823 East Loockerman Street, Dover, Delaware. It is related to the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the definitions of the allowed uses in the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) zoning district as outlined in Article 3 §1 and as defined in Article 12 - Definitions. Background Information Code Citations: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) Zoning District The description of the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and the uses permitted within the zone are given in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 1 as well as the procedures for establishment of uses on the property.  Exhibit 3A – Zoning Ordinance excerpt for R-8 zone. (Text in place at the time of Building Permit Application filing in September 2015.)

V-16-15 Appeal regarding Property at 823 East Loockerman Street Report to Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 4 Definitions Specific terms are defined in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 – Definitions. (It is noted that Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 Definitions was amended with the adoption of Ordinance #2015- 20 on January 11, 2016 and with the adoption of Ordinance #2016-16 on August 8, 2016.)  Exhibit 3B – Zoning Ordinance excerpt of Definitions. (Text in place at the time of Building Permit Application filing in September 2015.) o Dwelling, detached o Dwelling, one family o Dwelling unit o Trailer, house Site Development Plan, Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy Procedures The procedures for Site Development Plans and for issuance of a Building Permit and a Certificate of Occupancy as related to the aspects of the Zoning Ordinance compliance are given in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 2 and Zoning Ordinance, Article 8 Section 1 and Section 2.  Exhibit 3C – Zoning Ordinance excerpt for Site Development Plan, Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy Procedures. o Article 10 Section 2 – Site Development Plan Approval, Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 o Article 8 Section 1 – Building Permits, Section 2 – Certificates of Occupancy, and Section 3 – Duties of the City Planner Property Information: Property at 823 East Loockerman Street, Dover:  Exhibit 4A – Zoning Map Exhibit Tax Parcel Map Number: ED-05-077.-06-02-55.00-000 Property Ownership: Current property owner listed as Brenda Redlich. Previous property ownership listed as Robert D. and Betty J. Henry.  Building Related Permits: Plumbing Permit #15-940 Plumbing (Water Connection/Sewer Connection) Building Permit #15-1192 for Dwelling Plumbing Permit #15-1615 Plumbing (Gas Service Connection) Fence Permit #15-1960

V-16-15 Appeal regarding Property at 823 East Loockerman Street Report to Board of Adjustment APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages 1A Application to Board of Adjustment for Appeal 2 (Applicant Submission) 1B Letter on behalf of the Appellant (Georgia Heininger-Trader) dated October 3, 2 2016 from Eric M. Andersen with Attachment (Exhibit 1C) (Applicant Submission) 1C Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware C.A. No. 11741-VCN, Georgia 86 Heininger-Trader vs. Betty J. Henry, Robert D. Henry, Brenda Redlich, City of Dover and CMH Homes, Inc.: Second Amended Class Action Compliance Document with attached Exhibits A-G (Applicant Submission) 2A Building Permit Application #15-1192 with application submission attachments 29 (Department of Planning & Inspections file) 2B Building Permit #15-1192 issued on October 14, 2015 10 (Department of Planning & Inspections file) 2C Certificate of Occupancy issued on December 2, 2015 with attachments 10 (Department of Planning & Inspections file) 3A Zoning Ordinance excerpt for R-8 zone. (Text in place at the time of Building 3 Permit Application filing in September 2015.) 3B Zoning Ordinance excerpt of Definitions. (Text in place at the time of Building 1 Permit Application filing in September 2015.) o Dwelling, detached o Dwelling, one family o Dwelling unit o Trailer, house 3C Zoning Ordinance excerpt for Site Development Plan, Building Permit and 5 Certificate of Occupancy Procedures. o Article 10 Section 2 – Site Development Plan Approval, Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 o Article 8 Section 1 – Building Permits, Section 2 – Certificates of Occupancy, and Section 3 – Duties of the City Planner 4A Zoning Map Exhibit (Staff) 1

EXHIBIT 1A

EXHIBIT 1B

Exhibit 1C

EXHIBIT 2A

EXHIBIT 2B

EXHIBIT 2C

Exhibit 3A – Zoning Ordinance excerpt for R-8 zone. (Text in place at the time of Building Permit Application filing in September 2015.) ARTICLE 3. - DISTRICT REGULATIONS Section 1. One-family residence zones [(R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8 and R-7)}. (R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, R-7.) (See also article 5, Supplementary Regulations; and article 6, Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities.) 1.1 Uses permitted. In a one-family residence R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8 and R-7 zones, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any uses except the following: 1.11 The raising of field and garden crops, vineyards and orchard farming, the maintenance of nurseries, and the seasonal sale of the products thereof, provided no building is erected and signs conform with article 5, section 4. 1.12 One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one such dwelling per lot. 1.13 Public buildings, structures and uses, including parks and playgrounds, subject to approval of site plans by the planning commission in accordance with article 10, section 2. 1.14 The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in section 10.1 and to any specified requirements set forth below: (a) Places of worship, including parish houses; [and] schools, including nursery schools, kindergartens and day care centers in accordance with article 5, Supplementary Regulations, section 14. Day care facilities; philanthropic and eleemosynary institutions; hospitals and sanitariums for general medical care; and funeral homes subject to the following requirements: i. Any school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)] shall be a nonprofit organization within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Act and shall be registered effectively as such thereunder. ii. Any school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)], other than a kindergarten, nursery school, or day care center, shall occupy a lot with an area of not less than two acres, plus one acre for each 100 pupils for which the building is designed. iii. Any kindergarten or nursery school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)] shall be limited to a maximum of 50 children in zones R-8 thru R-20 and a maximum of 100 children in all other zones. At least 100 square feet of outdoor play space per child shall be provided. Outdoor play space shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed on all sides and shall not include driveways, parking areas, or land unsuited by other usage or natural features for children's active play space. Fencing or other enclosures shall be a minimum height of four feet. The minimum lot V-16-15 Appeal regarding Property at 823 East Loockerman Street Exhibit 3A: Page 1 of 3

area for each ten, or remainder over the multiple of ten, children shall be the same as the minimum lot area requirement for each dwelling unit in the districts in which such uses are to be located. iv. No such building or part thereof shall be erected with less than a 50- foot front yard or nearer than 25 feet from any other street or property line. v. The sum of all areas covered by all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed 20 percent of the area of the lot. vi. Courts shall conform to the requirements of article 5, section 3 hereof. (b) Railroad and public utility rights-of-way and structures necessary to serve areas within the city, subject to such conditions as the planning commission may impose in order to protect and promote the health and safety and general welfare of the community and the character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to be constructed. (c) Country clubs or other annual membership clubs, catering exclusively to members and their guests, and accessory private playgrounds, golf courses, swimming pools, tennis courts and recreation buildings not conducted as business enterprises, provided that the following operations shall be prohibited: i. Outdoor entertainment, live or mechanical; ii. The use of outdoor public address systems for any purpose; and iii. Exterior lighting producing glare at the lot line other than that essential for the safety of the users of the premises. No building erected under the provisions of this paragraph [subsection 1.14(c)] shall be so erected nearer than 50 feet to any street or property line. 1.15 Accessory uses, limited to the following: (a) Professional office or studio of an artist, dentist, musician, teacher, or physician, but not including veterinarians, provided that: i. Such office or studio is incidental to the residential use of the premises and is carried on by a resident thereon with not more than one nonresident assistant; and ii. Such office or studio shall occupy not more than 30 percent of the area of one floor of the main building. iii. Studios where dancing or music instruction is offered to groups in excess of four pupils at one time or where concerts or recitals are held are prohibited. iv. Medical centers, barbershops, beauty parlors, real estate offices, funeral homes or similar uses shall not be considered permitted accessory uses. V-16-15 Appeal regarding Property at 823 East Loockerman Street Exhibit 3A: Page 2 of 3

(b) Garden house, tool house, playhouse, greenhouse or pool incidental to the residential use of the premises and not operated for gain. (c) Private garage, provided that, in the case of a one-family dwelling, such garage shall have a capacity of not more than three passenger automobiles. One such space may be leased to a person not [a] resident on the premises. (d) Keeping domestic animals (except pigs) for individual domestic purposes or as pets, provided not more than three dogs over six months old and not more than 25 fowl shall be permitted, and no animals (except dogs) or fowl shall be penned or housed within 20 feet of any lot line. (e) (Reserved.) (f) Dormitories accessory to schools, provided that such dormitories conform to the bulk regulations of the RG-1 zone. For purposes of computing bulk requirements, each four rooms shall be considered one dwelling unit. Parking shall be calculated as identified in Article 6—Off-Street Parking, Section 3— Required off-street parking spaces, Paragraph 3.1—Schedule of requirements. (g) Customary home occupations, provided that: i. No display of products, goods and/or signs shall be visible from the street. ii. Such home occupation shall be incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises and shall be conducted in the principal building by the resident or residents that reside therein. iii. Nonresident assistants or co-workers shall be prohibited. iv. Such home occupation shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the area of one floor in the principal building. v. There shall be no exterior effect such as noise, traffic, odor, dust, smoke, gas, fumes, radiation, or electromagnetic interference. 1.16 [1.2] Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and related accessory structures. Such approval shall also be required prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a change of use. 1.17 [1.3] Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 1.18 [1.4] [ Closed zone.] Zone R-7 is a closed zone in accordance with article 10, section 5.19. 1.19 [1.5] [ Signs.] Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign regulations. (Ord. of 1-8-1979; Ord. of 5-14-1990; Ord. of 12-14-1992(2); Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12-2001; Ord. No. 2009-12, 9-14-2009; Ord. No. 2011-21, 10-10-2011) V-16-15 Appeal regarding Property at 823 East Loockerman Street Exhibit 3A: Page 3 of 3

Exhibit 3B – Zoning Ordinance excerpt of Definitions. (Text in place at the time of Building Permit Application filing in September 2015.) o Dwelling, detached o Dwelling, one family o Dwelling unit o Trailer, house ARTICLE 12. - DEFINITIONS Unless otherwise expressly stated, the following terms shall, for the purpose of this ordinance, have the following meanings. Words used in the present tense include the future. The singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular. The word "person" includes a corporation, association or partnership, as well as an individual. The word "lot" includes the word "plot." The term "occupied" or "used," as applied to any building, shall be construed as though followed by the words "or intended, arranged or designed to be occupied or used": Dwelling, detached: A dwelling having no walls in common with other dwellings or with nonresidential uses. Dwelling, one-family: A dwelling unit designed and intended for use by only one family. Dwelling unit: A building or entirely self-contained portion thereof containing complete housekeeping facilities for only one family, including any domestic servants employed on the premises, and having no enclosed space (other than vestibules, entrance or other hallways or porches) or cooking or sanitary facilities in common with any other dwelling unit. A boarding[house] or roominghouse, convalescent home, dormitory, fraternity or sorority house, hotel, inn, lodging, nursing, or other similar home, house trailer, or other similar structures or vehicles shall not be deemed to constitute a dwelling unit. Trailer, house: Any vehicle mounted on wheels, movable either by its own power or by being drawn by another vehicle, and equipped to be used for living or sleeping quarters or so as to permit cooking. The term “house trailer” shall include vehicles if mounted on temporary or permanent foundations with the wheels removed. V-16-15 Appeal regarding Property at 823 East Loockerman Street Exhibit 3B: Page 1 of 1

Exhibit 3C – Zoning Ordinance excerpt for Site Development Plan, Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy Procedures. o Article 10 Section 2 – Site Development Plan Approval, Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 o Article 8 Section 1 – Building Permits, Section 2 – Certificates of Occupancy, and Section 3 – Duties of the City Planner ARTICLE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION Section 2. - Site development plan approval. 2.1 Required. Site development plan approval shall be required for the erection or enlargement of all structures and the establishment of any use for which site development plan approval is required by this ordinance. Site development plan shall be required according to the following criteria: 2.11 Planning commission site plan review. Site development plans shall be subject to review and approval by the planning commission if they meet the following thresholds: (A) New structures. Site plans for new structures of 5,000 square feet or greater in floor area; or (B) Additions to existing structures. Site plans for additions to existing structures that (1) constitute 15 percent or more of the existing floor area, and (2) new floor area is greater than 5,000 square feet; or (C) Additions of impervious surface. Site plans that propose new or additional impervious surfaces that (1) constitute 15% or more of the existing impervious surface area and (2) are equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface; or (D) Adjacent to residential. Nonresidential site plans with site disturbance greater than 2,500 square feet and adjacent to residential uses or residential zones. 2.12 Site development master plan. Site development master plans shall be subject to review and approval by the planning commission in accordance with subsection 2.44. 2.13 Zoning review. For site development plans involving construction of a single-family detached, single-family attached, or single-family semidetached dwelling; an accessory structure; or a nonresidential change of use for which no building addition or increase in impervious surface is proposed, the city planner or his designee may approve the site development plan in conjunction with building permit review. 2.14 Administrative site plan. All site development plans that do not meet the thresholds for zoning review in accordance with subsection 2.13 or planning commission site plan review in accordance with subsection 2.11 shall be reviewed as administrative site development plans. 2.2 Objectives. In considering and acting upon site development plans, the public health, safety and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the public in general and of the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular shall be taken into consideration and appropriate V-16-15 Appeal regarding Property at 823 East Loockerman Street Exhibit 3C: Page 1 of 5

conditions and safeguards may be prescribed as may be required that the results of approval may, to the maximum extent possible, further the expressed intent of this ordinance and the accomplishment of the following objectives in particular: 2.21 Maximum safety and convenience of vehicular, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic by ensuring that all proposed and impacted streets, driveways and walkways are adequate, but not excessive in number, adequate in width, grade, alignment, capacity, and visibility, and suitably located, particularly with respect to their connections with public streets. 2.22 The provision of adequate access to all proposed structures, equipment, or material on the site for fire, ambulance, police, and other emergency services. 2.23 The provision of adequate off-street parking to accommodate the vehicles of persons connected with or visiting the use and to obviate the parking of such vehicles in public streets. 2.24 A site layout (including the location, power, direction, and time of any outdoor lighting of the site) which would have no adverse effect upon adjacent properties. 2.25 Landscaping of the site in a manner which is in character with that generally prevailing in the neighborhood and which provides reasonable screening, at all seasons of the year, of all playgrounds, parking areas, and service areas from the view of adjacent residential properties and streets. 2.26 In applicable cases, a drainage system and layout which would afford the best solution to any drainage problems. 2.27 Ensure that large scale development projects involving extended construction periods are planned and implemented in accordance with an approved site development master plan. 2.28 Consideration shall be given to the physical orientation and architectural characteristics of proposed buildings, the relationship of proposed buildings to existing buildings and to other proposed buildings, and their contributions to the overall image of the immediate vicinity by considering the building and architectural design guidelines as set forth in article 5, section 19. Design characteristics of proposed buildings and building additions shall not detract or devalue existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. (A) If the planning commission determines that the proposed physical orientation and architectural characteristics of the proposed buildings do not meet the intent and objectives of this section, then the planning commission shall refer the proposal to the architectural review oversight subcommittee for review and comment. (B) The subcommittee shall meet and review the proposal with the applicant, and return its comments to the planning commission by the next regularly scheduled meeting. (C) The architectural review oversight subcommittee shall be appointed by the commission at its annual meeting, and membership shall consist of two planning commission members, and two design professionals with experience in construction, and the mayor or the mayor's designee. Two alternate design professionals with experience in construction shall also be appointed. 2.3 Effect of site development plan approval. No building permit will be issued for any structure covered by this section until an approved site development plan or approved V-16-15 Appeal regarding Property at 823 East Loockerman Street Exhibit 3C: Page 2 of 5

amendment of any such plan has been secured by the applicant. No certificate of occupancy will be issued for any structure or use of land covered by this section unless the structure is completed or the land is developed or used in accordance with an approved site development plan or approved amendment of any such plan. ARTICLE 8. - ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES Section 1. - Building permits. No building or structure in any district shall be erected or structurally altered without a building permit duly issued upon application to the building inspector. No building permit shall be issued unless the proposed construction or use is in full conformity with all the provisions of this ordinance. Any building permit issued in violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall be null and void and of no effect, without the necessity for any proceedings for revocations or nullification thereof, and any work undertaken or use established pursuant to any such permit shall be unlawful (see section 4 for penalties). 1.1 No building permit shall be issued for the construction or alteration of any building upon a lot without frontage upon, or legal permanent access to, a public street improved to the satisfaction of the planning commission, or without access to a public sewer. 1.2 No building permit shall be issued for any building where the site development plan of such building is subject to approval by the planning commission, except upon approval of such plans approved by the said commission. 1.21 No building permit shall be issued for any building in a subdivision unless the subdivision plot has been approved by the planning commission. 1.3 No building permit shall be issued for a building to be used for any conditional use in any zone where such use is allowed only with approval of the planning commission, unless and until such approval has been duly granted by the said commission. (Ord. of 7-12-1993, §3) Section 2. - Certificates of occupancy. The following shall be unlawful until a certificate of occupancy shall have been applied for and issued by the building inspector: a. Occupancy and use of a building hereafter erected, structurally altered or moved, or any change in the use of an existing building; b. Occupancy, use or any change in the use of any land; and c. Any change in use of a nonconforming use. 2.1 No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any conditional use of a building or of land requiring approval of the planning commission as specified in article 10, section 1 of this ordinance, unless and until such conditional use has been duly approved by said commission. Every certificate of occupancy for a conditional use or in conformance with a duly granted variance granted by the board of adjustment shall contain a detailed statement of such conditional use or variance and of any conditions to which the same is subject. V-16-15 Appeal regarding Property at 823 East Loockerman Street Exhibit 3C: Page 3 of 5

2.2 Application for [a] certificate of occupancy, on a form furnished by the building inspector, of a new building or for an existing building which has been altered, shall be made after the erection of such building or part thereof has been completed in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance and, in the case of a new building, shall be accompanied by an accurate survey, prepared by a licensed land surveyor, showing the location of all buildings as built. Such certificate shall be issued within ten days after receipt of said application, but only provided all requirements of this ordinance and of all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect are complied with. 2.3 If the proposed use is in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance and of all other applicable laws and ordinances, a certificate of occupancy for the use of vacant land or for a change of use of a nonconforming use shall be issued by the building inspector within ten days after receipt of a written application therefore. If the certificate of occupancy is denied, the building inspector shall state the reasons therefore [therefor] in writing. 2.4 Every application for a certificate of occupancy or a temporary certificate of occupancy shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. 2.5 Every application for a certificate of occupancy shall state that the building or the proposed use of a building or land complies with all applicable provisions of this ordinance. 2.6 A certificate of occupancy shall be required for both initial and continued occupancy and use of the building or land to which it applies, as certified. 2.7 A certificate of occupancy shall be required of all nonconforming uses. 2.71 Such certificate shall specify each condition or use not conforming with this ordinance. 2.72 Such a certificate shall expire after 12 months, unless renewed. 2.73 A new certificate shall be required if there is any change in use or ownership from that specified. 2.74 The building inspector shall renew or reissue such a certificate if inspection establishes that no provision of this ordinance has been violated. 2.8 A record of all certificates of occupancy shall be kept in the office of the building inspector and copies shall be furnished, [up]on request, to any agency of the city or to any persons having a proprietary or tenancy interest in the building or land affected. (Ord. of 7-12-1982, § 6; Ord. of 5-11-1987; Ord. No. 2009-09, 6-22-2009) Section 3. - Duties of the city planner. 3.1 It shall be the duty of the city planner to enforce the provisions of this ordinance and all of the rules, conditions and requirements adopted or specified pursuant thereto. 3.2 It shall be the duty of the city planner to interpret the provisions of this ordinance. Appeals of the city planner(s interpretation shall be heard by the board of adjustment in accordance of article 9. 3.3 The city planner shall maintain files, open to the public, of all applications filed, along with plans submitted therewith pursuant to this appendix. V-16-15 Appeal regarding Property at 823 East Loockerman Street Exhibit 3C: Page 4 of 5

3.4 The city planner shall maintain files, open to the public, of all complaints of violations of provisions of this of this ordinance, as well as any action taken as a result of this complaint. The names of complainants shall not be open to the public. 3.5 The city planner and his duly authorized assistants shall have the right to enter upon any land that is the subject of an application under this appendix during any reasonable hour, as necessary in the execution of the requirements of this appendix. (Ord. of 4-28-2008(2)) V-16-15 Appeal regarding Property at 823 East Loockerman Street Exhibit 3C: Page 5 of 5

City of Dover Application No.: V-16-15 Department of Planning & Inspections R-7 h tsc R-7 R-7 Mi R-7 R R-8 er d R-7 R-7 dA lan ill R-7 Up nh R-7 ve ee R-7 Gr R-7 R-8 R-7 e Av t an C t kerm nS Looc isio Div R- C-1 7 RG-2 n Ln a rde gG r in Sp R-7 R-7 R-8 R-8 RG-2 Blu e co R-8 R-8 at d St yR R-8 R-8 C-4 lse Ha R-8 St an R-8 m k er oc Lo ve lA hil ge Ed R-8 R-8 SC-2 RG-2 C-4 nt po Jo C-4 C- Du hn 4 Hw nn y Hu C-4 ow Br n Rd C-4 Title: Georgia Heininger-Trader Appeal for Address: 823 E Loockerman St Parcel ID: ED-05-077.06-02-55.00-000 Legend Zoning: R-8 Owner: Brenda Redlich Subject Property Date: 10/31/2016 Dover Parcels Zoning « 0 175 350 700 Feet 2012 Buildings

MEMORANDUM Department of Planning & Inspections P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 Phone: 302.736.7196 Fax: 302.736.4217 Date: November 9, 2016 To: Board of Adjustment From: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning & Community Development RE: 823 East Loockerman Street – Planning Office Response to Appeal You are in receipt of an appeal from Georgia Heininger-Trader of the building permit issued for construction of a manufactured home at the location of 823 East Loockerman Street in Dover. The appeal contends that the building permit was issued in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. Please accept the following as a response to the allegations made in the appeal. The property at 823 East Loockerman Street is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). To determine if a given use is permitted, staff refers to the permitted uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 1. Based on this section “one-family detached dwellings” are a permitted use. Staff then referenced the Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 – Definitions. To make the determination that the permit requested was permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, staff reviewed the following definitions: Dwelling, detached: A dwelling having no walls in common with other dwellings or with nonresidential uses. Dwelling, one-family: A dwelling unit designed and intended for use by only one family. Dwelling unit: A building or entirely self-contained portion thereof containing complete housekeeping facilities for only one family, including any domestic servants employed on the premises, and having no enclosed space (other than vestibules, entrance or other hallways or porches) or cooking or sanitary facilities in common with any other dwelling unit. A boarding[house] or roominghouse, convalescent home, dormitory, fraternity or sorority house, hotel, inn, lodging, nursing, or other similar home, house trailer, or other similar structures or vehicles shall not be deemed to constitute a dwelling unit. Trailer, house: Any vehicle mounted on wheels, movable either by its own power or by being drawn by another vehicle, and equipped to be used for living or sleeping quarters or so as to permit cooking. The term "house trailer" shall include vehicles if mounted on temporary or permanent foundations with the wheels removed.

MEMO 2 Based on our review of these definitions, we determined that a manufactured home is not a “house trailer” by definition (as it is not mounted on wheels), and that a manufactured home met the definition of a one family detached dwelling at the time the permit was issued. The appeal references the Chapter 66 – Manufactured Homes and Trailers, Section 66-3 – Real Property Taxes, which indicates that mobile homes “shall only be permitted to be located in the mobile home park zone (MPH), as spelled out in appendix B to this Code (article 3, section 8).” This language is located in the section of Dover Code that licenses manufactured homes. This section of code does not have the authority under Delaware Code, Title 22 - Municipalities, Chapter 3 – Municipal Zoning Regulations to regulate zoning. Provisions of Chapter 66 are not subject to Planning Commission review and public hearing and notice requirements that are required of zoning amendments. The permit for the manufactured home at 823 East Loockerman Street was issued in September 2015. Following concerns raised by members of City Council, an ordinance was introduced on November 9, 2015 to amend the definition of “dwelling, one family” to prohibit future placement of manufactured homes or mobile homes in one family residence zones. City Council adopted this ordinance on January 11, 2016. This was followed by a thorough review and update of the provisions throughout the Dover Code that relate to manufactured housing, which City Council adopted on August 8, 2016. In evaluating the definitions provided and the codes in place at the time the permit was issued, staff is confident that the permit was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. As we evaluated this issue, we determined that the Dover Code has not been kept current with current terminology as it relates to manufactured homes and mobile homes. Manufactured housing has been regulated by standards developed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1976. Staff includes the following exhibits for the record:  P&I #1 – Materials shared with City Council regarding manufactured homes following the issuance of the permit  P&I #2 – Exhibit Map showing the distance between the appellant’s property and the subject property.  P&I #3 – Photos of the home at 823 E. Loockerman Street.

Exhibit - P&I#1 ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning and Inspections DATE SUBMITTED: October 30, 2015 PREPARED BY: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning & Community Development SUBJECT: Review of Chapter 66 - Manufactured Homes and Trailers and Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 1 - One Family Residence Zones and Article 12 - Definitions REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A REVIEWED BY: N/A EXHIBITS: FAQ from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD ) regarding manufactured housing; Manufactured Housing in Delaware (publication by Delaware State Housing Authority); Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 1 – (One Family Residence Zones); Article 12 – Definitions for “Dwelling, one-family,” “dwelling unit,” and “dwelling, detached” EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIMETABLE: See recommendation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Immediate term: Introduction of the ordinance to amend the definition of “dwelling, one-family” and to add definition for “manufactured home,” with referral to the public hearing before the Planning Commission for December 21, 2015 and public hearing and action by City Council on January 11, 2016. 2. Next 6 -12 months: o Full review of Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 to determine what components of the chapter are relevant and should be retained, and what components should be eliminated. Any provisions that appear to regulate placement should be eliminated, as these requirements need to be in the Zoning Ordinance. o Full review of MHP (Mobile Home Park) Zone to ensure that the zone is current with best practices. o Full review of the Residential Zones and associated definitions. There are other areas that need to be tightened up to provide clarity on a number of matters that could affect the character of neighborhoods throughout the City. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Following the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a manufactured home on a property within the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone), several residents and members of City Council expressed concerns about the appropriateness of this housing type within the One Family Residence Zones. Staff subsequently reviewed literature available about manufactured housing and has developed recommendations for amending the code to prohibit manufactured housing in the One Family Residence Zones and to update code requirements in the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 – Manufactured Homes and Trailers, and Appendix B – Zoning. The recommendation is for an immediate amendment to the definition of “dwelling, one family” and a review and update of other code sections over the next year. Staff recommends the following changes to the “dwelling, one family” definition in Appendix B, Article 12 -

Definitions (proposed changes identified in blue bold): Dwelling, one-family: A permanent dwelling unit placed on a permanent foundation and designed and intended for use by only one family. One-family dwellings shall not include manufactured homes or mobile homes but shall include modular homes constructed to the standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22 – Buildings and Building Regulations. Staff also recommends that the following definition be added to Appendix B, Article 12 – Definitions: Manufactured Home: A factory-built housing unit designed and constructed to meet the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code. A manufactured home is built on a chassis that supports the structural integrity of the home and to allow transport to the site. Factory-built units built to meet the HUD Code and constructed after the code took effect on June 15, 1976 are classified as "manufactured homes."

Manufactured Housing in Delaware A Summary of Information and Issues DELAWARE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY December 2008

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................4 CHARACTERISTICS OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN THE U.S. AND DELAWARE ............................................7 FROM TRAILERS TO MANUFACTURED HOMES ...............................................................................................................7 ROLE IN THE DELAWARE MARKET .............................................................................................................................10 DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................................................................................................................................12 UNIT CHARACTERISTICS...........................................................................................................................................15 The HUD Code...............................................................................................................................................15 Installation....................................................................................................................................................15 Today’s Manufactured Housing ...................................................................................................................16 Affordability..................................................................................................................................................17 LEGAL AND FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING ..........................................................19 CHALLENGES FOR HOMEOWNERS IN LAND‐LEASE COMMUNITIES....................................................................................20 FINANCING ...........................................................................................................................................................20 Conventional Financing ................................................................................................................................21 Government Programs .................................................................................................................................22 Personal Property Lending............................................................................................................................23 APPRECIATION ......................................................................................................................................................24 RESIDENT OWNED COMMUNITIES (ROCS) ...................................................................................................26 KEY ELEMENTS FOR ROC SUCCESS ............................................................................................................................26 INITIATIVES TO ADVANCE ROCS ............................................................................................................................... 27 MANUFACTURED HOUSING TENURE ISSUES IN DELAWARE..........................................................................29 LANDLORD/TENANT CODE .......................................................................................................................................29 EFFORTS TO ADVANCE ROCS ...................................................................................................................................30 DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............................................................................................................................................31 LOT RENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................31 DELAWARE MANUFACTURED HOME RELOCATION AUTHORITY .......................................................................................32 CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................................34 MAPS...........................................................................................................................................................35 RESOURCES..................................................................................................................................................39 SOURCES .....................................................................................................................................................41 2

Index of Tables, Charts and Maps TABLES TABLE 1: MANUFACTURED HOMES, TENURE AND POPULATION, UNITED STATES, DELAWARE AND COUNTIES, 2005‐2007 .....9 TABLE 2: VACANCY STATUS BY TYPE OF UNIT, DELAWARE AND SUSSEX COUNTY, 2005....................................................10 TABLE 3: ESTIMATED MANUFACTURED HOMES ON LEASED LAND, DELAWARE AND COUNTIES, 2007 .................................12 TABLE 4: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS BY RACE AND MANUFACTURED HOUSING, UNITED STATES AND DELAWARE, 2005 ‐ 2007 13 TABLE 5: AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES, UNITED STATES, 2007...................................................14 TABLE 6: AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES, DELAWARE, 2000.........................................................14 TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD SIZE FOR HOUSEHOLDS IN MANUFACTURED HOMES, UNITED STATES, 2007 ...................................15 TABLE 8: COST AND SIZE COMPARISON: NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES AND NEW SINGLE‐FAMILY SITE‐BUILT HOMES .........18 TABLE 9: CURRENT MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE, UNITED STATES, 2007 ........................................................................21 CHARTS CHART 1: MANUFACTURED HOMES AS A PERCENTAGE OF NEW SINGLE‐FAMILY HOUSING STARTS, UNITED STATES, 1994 – 2007 ...8 CHART 2: MANUFACTURED HOMES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HOUSING STOCK, 1990 – 2007 .....................................10 CHART 3: MANUFACTURED HOMES, SUSSEX COUNTY, 2005 .......................................................................................11 CHART 4: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY TENURE AND MANUFACTURED HOMES, UNITED STATES, DELAWARE AND COUNTIES, 2000 ..................................................................................................................................................13 CHART 5: NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES PLACED BY SIZE, UNITED STATES, 1980‐2007 .................................................15 CHART 6: AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES BY SIZE, UNITED STATES, 1990 – 2007 ..............16 CHART 7: AVERAGE SALES PRICE OF NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES, UNITED STATES, SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION, AND DELAWARE, 2000 – 2007 .....................................................................................................................................17 CHART 8: TITLING OF NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES, UNITED STATES, 1990 – 2007 .....................................................20 MAPS MAP 1: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MANUFACTURED HOUSING, DELAWARE, 2000................................................35 MAP 2: MANUFACTURED HOMES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HOUSING STOCK, DELAWARE 2000...................................36 MAP 3: PERCENTAGE OF MANUFACTURED HOMES VACANT, SUSSEX COUNTY, 2000 ......................................................37 MAP 4: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MANUFACTURED HOUSING OVER AGE 55, DELAWARE 2000 .............................38 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose As the State of Delaware’s housing finance agency, community development agency and public housing authority for Kent and Sussex Counties, the Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA) helps Delaware families achieve and maintain homeownership; creates and preserves affordable rental housing; administers federal programs; and provides a wide variety of other affordable housing products and services. DSHA also serves as a source for information and research on affordable housing issues in the state. The purpose of this paper is to provide a broad and inclusive report on manufactured housing in Delaware, with an overview of statistics, activity and issues at the national level as well as a review of the landscape and challenges in Delaware. DSHA hopes this paper will be a valuable resource for a variety of audiences, including state and local elected officials and policymakers, other state and local government agencies, advocates, manufactured homeowners, community owners, and the general public as manufactured housing and the administrative and legal structures around it continue to evolve. Summary With almost 9 million manufactured homes in the United States today, manufactured housing is undeniably a major part of the nation’s housing stock and market. As it evolved from the trailers of the past to the large, well‐designed, high‐quality new homes of today, manufactured housing has become a vital source of affordable housing, both nationally and in Delaware, particularly as a homeownership opportunity for low‐income households who otherwise would likely not be able to move into homeownership. The community development and policy advocacy fields are increasingly recognizing the importance of manufactured housing as part of broader strategies to help low‐income families achieve and sustain homeownership and build wealth. Attitudes toward manufactured housing have long been influenced by negative stereotypes of the quality of the housing, its benefit to the consumer, and unfortunately often about consumers themselves. Most do not want it in their backyard, or think that manufactured home owners would simply be better off in other types of housing, or have wished that it would just go away. However, continuing advances in construction, quality, amenities and design, and significant cost savings over site built housing have made manufactured housing a popular and affordable permanent housing choice for millions of Americans and thousands of Delawareans. In recognition of manufactured housing’s enduring role in the housing market, in recent years national and state initiatives have been launched to rethink this negative approach, replacing it with initiatives to look at the sector as a whole and work to improve conditions for manufactured homeowners, both current and future. Model programs are demonstrating that the challenges with tenure and financing that have long limited manufactured homeowners’ ability to build wealth through their home and, at worst, left them vulnerable to losing their asset altogether, are not insurmountable. This paper reviews national and state statistics on manufactured housing, the various issues facing manufactured homeowners, and strategies both national and local to maximize manufactured housing’s potential and preserve it as a source of affordable housing. Key points include: • Manufactured housing is a critical source of affordable housing, especially as homeownership for low‐ income households. With an estimated almost 41,000 units in Delaware, manufactured housing is 10% of the state’s housing stock and home to approximately 70,000 Delawareans. 4

• Manufactured housing is particularly predominant in Sussex County, where it is popular both as a source of housing for the general local population as well as for retirement homes and vacation homes. Over 60% of the state’s manufactured housing is located in Sussex County, and almost a quarter of the County’s housing stock is manufactured homes, many of which (32% according to 2005 American Community Survey estimates) are held for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. • Over half (an estimated 23,122 of 40,673; 57%) of the manufactured homes in Delaware are located on leased land. This is high compared to national estimates of 30 to 35% of homes located on leased land. While land lease communities remain a popular option, the majority of new manufactured homes (74% in 2007, nationally) are placed outside manufactured housing communities. Still, millions of homes nationally, new and existing, are classified as personal property and located on leased land. • For the vast majority of manufactured homeowners, a manufactured home is a permanent housing product and, once placed, most homes are never moved. Nationally, about 17% of existing homes in 2005 were located on a permanent masonry foundation, but 26% of new homes in 2007 were placed on permanent foundations. For homes not on permanent foundations, relocation is still rare. Moving a home is expensive, exposes the home to damage, reduces the value of the home, and may even be impossible due to post‐placement additions or modifications. • Even in the best circumstances of manufactured housing communities that are operated well and with consideration for homeowners’ interests, the fact remains that owning a home on rented land over which the homeowner has no control, possibly a fairly short‐term lease, no predictability of future rent costs and the constant possibility of community sale or closure creates a fundamentally vulnerable situation for the homeowner. • The unique placement, titling, land‐ownership structure and resale market in the manufactured housing industry make them difficult candidates for long‐term conventional mortgages. Conventional financing for manufactured homes placed on the owner’s personally owned real estate and permanent foundations has expanded significantly in recent years, but there is little progress for homes titled as personal property and on leased land. For these homes, a personal property loan is generally the only option. As a result, homeowners have fewer protections, face higher costs, and ultimately negative effects on their ability to build wealth through their home. • Despite widely held views that manufactured housing only depreciates, research indicates that depreciation is not necessarily inherent to manufactured housing itself, but a reflection of issues in the market. Studies show that ownership or control over the land on which the home is placed affects appreciation more than any other factor. • The 2003 Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act was a major update of the existing Mobile Home Lots and Leases Act of 1986. Subsequent additions have made several positive steps forward, including: o Creation of the Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund, with an associated dedicated revenue source, to provide relocation assistance to homeowners in communities closing due to change of land use; o A lot rent assistance program for homeowners who are eligible for Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income or who are over 62 years old and meet other eligibility requirements; o Creation of a process for resolution of disputes between homeowners and community owners via the Governor’s Advisory Council on Manufactured Housing and outside mediators; and o Establishment of a right for manufactured homeowners, as an association or cooperative, to make and match offers for the purchase of their community. 5

• The 2003 legislative update and other initiatives in recent years have improved conditions and protections for homeowners. However, as homeowners on leased land over which they have no control, homeowners remain essentially vulnerable, particularly to community closure, but also to sale of the community and lot rent increases. • Resident ownership of manufactured housing communities is a promising means to improve security of tenure for manufactured homeowners. Homeowners can achieve greater 1) security against sale or closure of the community; 2) predictability of future lot rent costs; and 3) control over the governance of their community. The opportunity to purchase the community, comprehensive pre‐ and post‐ purchase technical assistance, and financing are key factors for the success of conversions to resident ownership. • Efforts to advance resident ownership of manufactured housing communities in Delaware have not been highly successful to date. However, the combination of the following has created a much more favorable environment for conversions: o The passage of an amendment to the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act giving manufactured homeowners the opportunity to purchase their community when the owner is interested in selling and match other offers; o The availability of comprehensive technical assistance and financing through a ROC USATM Certified Technical Assistance Provider, Real Estate Advisory and Development Services, Inc. (READS); and o The real estate slowdown and subsequent drop in inflated real estate values and development pressures, especially in Sussex County. With continuing advances at the national and state levels, conditions and opportunities for manufactured homeowners are slowly improving. However, as explored in this paper, major challenges remain, many relating directly or indirectly back to issues of titling, land ownership, and financing. Factory‐Built Housing Definitions There is often misunderstanding about various types of factory‐built housing. The two included in this summary are: Manufactured Home: A factory‐built housing unit designed and constructed to meet the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code. A manufactured home is built on a chassis that supports the structural integrity of the home and to allow transport to the site. Factory‐built units built to meet the HUD Code and constructed after the code took effect on June 15, 1976 are classified as “manufactured homes”. Mobile Home: A factory‐built unit constructed on a chassis and completed before June 15, 1976. Prior to the HUD code, mobile homes were not subject to uniform construction or safety standards. Other types of factory‐built housing not addressed here include: Trailer: Trailers are technically recreational vehicles that do not conform to either local building codes or the HUD code. While still used by many to refer to mobile or manufactured homes, these are not technically trailers. Modular Home: While often built in the same factories, modular homes are built to the same state or local building codes as site‐built homes and are always placed on permanent foundations. Homes are assembled in pieces at a factory and towed to the building site where they are assembled to construct the unit. This may be as simple as two rectangular pieces, similar to a multi‐section manufactured home, or very complex. Source: Housing Assistance Council, Manufactured Housing in Rural America (2005) and Manufactured Housing Institute (http://www.manufacturedhousing.org) 6

CHARACTERISTICS OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN THE U.S. AND DELAWARE From Trailers to Manufactured Homes Manufactured homes have become a largely permanent housing choice for millions of households, but the roots of this housing type, and the legal and financial structures around it, are in the much more mobile “travel trailers” of the past. What were first primarily recreational vehicles in the 1920s and 1930s were soon being used by some households as a form of permanent mobile residence, leading to the development of bigger trailers. In the Great Depression, the use of trailers as residence for transient populations widened, but also contributed to negative perceptions of trailers, those who lived in them, and the parks and camps where they would temporarily locate. In the 1940s, trailers were used both by the government to house construction workers in defense production areas as well as by thousands – some estimates of over 120,000 – of migrants working for the war effort. In the coming decades, mobile homes became increasingly larger, less mobile, and designed for permanent living (HAC, 2005). Annual shipments in the 1970s ranged from 200,000 to 300,000 per year, peaking at an incredible 570,000 in 1973. In 1976, the implementation of the HUD Code Data Sources on Manufactured Housing regulating construction quality, standards and safety further bolstered the industry by granting national While some national sources such as the American Housing Survey (AHS) provide a wealth of legitimacy to mobile homes as a form of housing. In information on manufactured homes, most of these the 1980s and 1990s, manufactured homes sources are not available at the state or local level. contributed significantly to new housing starts. Multi‐ The decennial Census offers good information on section or “double‐wide” homes became increasingly manufactured homes at the local (census tract) level, popular, and more and more homes were now but the 2000 data is dated at this point. The Census located on land owned by the homeowner, and Bureau’s annual Manufactured Housing Survey placed on permanent foundations. In this time, provides information on new home placements, sizes, locations, and prices. quality, industry self‐regulation, and financing options have improved greatly, and manufactured homes The American Community Survey (ACS) (the new have increasingly broad appeal as the industry has survey that is currently being phased in to replace the housing and economic portions of the Census) has improved marketing, design, and options. However, information at the state and County level on these advances are still limited in many ways by manufactured housing. However, as multi‐year manufactured housing’s roots in the travel trailer. estimates are still being developed for lower‐ These origins have far‐reaching consequences today, population areas, much of this is not yet available at affecting how homes are sold, titled, financed, the local or even county level for Delaware. Where owned, and ultimately, their potential for possible, the most recent information available is appreciation and viability as wealth‐building assets used. In most cases, this is the 2005 ‐ 2007 ACS. for their owners. Both the Census and ACS record manufactured homes as “mobile homes”. In most cases in this The 8.67million manufactured homes in the United report, this has been changed to “manufactured States constitute 6.91% of the nation’s housing stock. home” for consistency. Manufactured housing is much more common in the South, Southwest, and rural areas – while the 7

national percentage is less than 10%, in many areas it may approach or even exceed 20% of the housing stock, as in Sussex County. Statewide, 10.7% of Delaware’s housing stock is manufactured housing. New placements have tapered off in recent years, both as the industry continues to recover from CHART 1 several tumultuous years in the late 1990s – early 2000s and as part of the broader slump in the national housing market. Ninety‐five thousand (95,000) new manufactured homes were placed in 2007, 8% of new single family housing starts nationwide, down from a recent high of 373,000 manufactured homes at 23% of new single‐family housing starts in 1998 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manufactured Housing Survey). Still, manufactured housing is a very popular housing choice for millions of Americans – over 18 million people call it home. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Most manufactured homes are owner‐occupied. Nationally, 75.1% of manufactured homes are owner‐occupied, compared to the nation’s overall homeownership rate of 67.3% in the period from 2005 ‐ 2007. Indeed, manufactured housing is an important door to homeownership for many low‐income households and contributes to the nation’s and Delaware’s high homeownership rate (73.5% in 2005‐2007). In all three Delaware counties, the homeownership rate for manufactured homes was over 75% in 2005‐2007. In Kent and Sussex Counties, manufactured housing is a sizable portion of the owner‐occupied housing stock, at 15.4% in Kent and 22.4% in Sussex. 8

TABLE 1 Manufactured Homes, Homeownership and Population, United States, Delaware and Counties, 2005‐2007 Estimates United States Delaware Kent New Castle Sussex Margin Margin Margin Margin of Margin Estimate of Error Estimate of Error Estimate of Error Estimate Error Estimate of Error Housing Stock Manufactured Homes 8,729,075 30,752 40,763 1,362 8,908 649 6,033 592 25,822 1,059 Total 126,237,884 7,902 382,149 130 60,010 90 211,073 146 111,066 143 Manufactured Homes as a % of Housing Stock 6.91% 0.02% 10.67% 0.36% 14.84% 1.08% 2.86% 0.28% 23.25% 0.95% Homeownership Owner‐occupied housing units 75,072,666 172,605 236,646 2,326 40,556 916 138,742 1,818 57,348 1,222 Manufactured Homes 5,313,140 17,883 23,907 1,287 6,252 673 4,814 518 12,841 910 Manufactured Homes as % of Owner‐ Occupied Stock 7.08% 0.02% 10.10% 0.53% 15.42% 1.62% 3.47% 0.37% 22.39% 1.51% Renter‐Occupied Units 36,536,963 85,411 85,102 2,506 15,129 945 54,692 1,983 15,281 1,007 Manufactured Homes 1,761,388 15,983 5,323 776 1,912 377 718 294 2,693 516 Manufactured Homes as % of Renter ‐Occupied Stock 4.82% 0.04% 6.25% 0.89% 12.64% 2.36% 1.31% 0.54% 17.62% 3.17% Homeownership Rate – All Units 67.26% 0.14% 73.55% 0.58% 72.83% 1.41% 71.73% 0.80% 78.96% 1.14% Homeownership Rate – Manufactured Homes 75.10% 0.36% 81.79% 1.31% 76.58% 3.95% 87.02% 13.25%*** 82.66% 1.82% Population Total Population 290,655,225 531,432 827,788 8,932 144,160 3,674 506,504 7,116 177,124 4,032 Population in Manufactured Homes 17,859,281 76,923 69,619 4,208 21,320 2,298 12,451 1,809 35,848 2,763 % of Population in Manufactured Homes 6.14% 0.02% 8.41% 0.50% 14.79% 1.55% 2.46% 0.36% 20.24% 1.49% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005‐2007 American Community Survey Estimates * Margins of error are published with and should be considered when evaluating American Community Survey data. As the samples used in the annual ACS surveys are much smaller than in the decennial Census, three‐year estimates give the smallest margin of error, particularly for smaller geographies and subpopulations. ** The estimate is the 90‐percent confidence interval. The margin of error means that the estimate is 90% confident that the true value of an estimate lies within the upper and lower bounds of the margin of error. For example, the 2005 ‐ 2007 ACS estimates that there are 40,763 manufactured homes in Delaware, with a margin of error of +/‐1,362. This means that the ACS has a 90 percent level of confidence that the actual number of manufactured homes in Delaware lies within the range of 39,401 and 42,125. Margins of error have been calculated for aggregates and percentages derived from the ACS data. *** In some cases the formula to calculate a margin of error for derived percentages will not work, and an alternate formula which produces a more conservative margin of error can be used. This was the case for this estimate of margin of error for the homeownership rate among manufactured homes in New Castle County, leading to a particularly high derived margin of error. 9

Role in the Delaware Market Manufactured housing plays an undeniably large role in the CHART 2 Delaware housing market. It is a vital source of affordable and moderately‐priced housing for thousands of households, both in manufactured housing communities and when placed on privately owned land. Strong population growth and overall new housing construction in Kent and Sussex Counties led manufactured housing to decline somewhat as a percentage of the total housing stock since 1990, still exceeding 10% in Kent County and 20% in Sussex, well above the national rate of 7%. As new construction of single‐family homes in Delaware has largely targeted higher income markets in recent years, manufactured homes have been an important Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census, 2000 source for new affordable homeownership housing in the Census, 2007 American Community Survey state. The 2005‐2007 three‐year ACS estimates indicate that 63.3% (25,822) of Delaware’s 40,763 manufactured homes are located in Sussex County. While many are on personal property, manufactured housing communities abound in Sussex County, from small, older communities tucked away in rural areas to sprawling communities with numerous amenities near the beach resorts. TABLE 2 Vacancy Status by Type of Unit, Delaware and Sussex County, 2005 Delaware Sussex County Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Single‐Family Units Total Units 263,326 4,876 67,697 2,253 Total Vacant 30,975 2,393 19,413 1,704 Vacancy Rate 11.76% 0.88% 28.68% 2.33% Vacant for Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use 16,404 1,911 15,532 1,697 % of All SF Units Held Vacant for Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use 6.23% 0.72% 22.94% 2.39% Multi‐Family Units Total Units 50,342 3,595 13,173 1,643 Total Vacant 15,243 2,030 6,991 1,300 Vacancy Rate 30.28% 3.40% 53.07% 7.32% Vacant for Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use 5,673 1,196 5,424 1,110 % of All MF Units Held Vacant for Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use 11.27% 2.24% 41.18% 6.68% Manufactured Homes and all other types of units Total Units 42,488 2,207 26,249 1,827 Total Vacant 11,014 1,516 10,061 1,304 Vacancy Rate 25.92% 3.30% 38.33% 4.19% Vacant for Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use 8,563 1,315 8,386 1,225 % of All MH Units Held Vacant for Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use 20.15% 2.91% 31.95% 4.10% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005 American Community Survey Notes: Data not available for Kent and New Castle Counties. ACS vacancy data group manufactured homes together with "all other types of units", meaning the category "Boat, RV, Van, Etc." However, this additional category is quite small and comprises only 366 total units statewide and 39 units in Sussex County. 10

As is also the national trend, manufactured homes are popular as vacation homes. As of 2005, over 8,000 of Sussex County’s over 26,000 manufactured homes are estimated by the American Community Survey to be held vacant for “seasonal, recreational or occasional use.” Still, communities with many vacation homes are also permanent homes for local residents who work in the area and for many retirees who have made it their permanent home. CHART 3 In eastern Sussex County, high housing prices are a major barrier for low‐ and moderate‐income households; the only option for the vast majority of workers is to commute from other areas. Manufactured housing communities are one source of affordable homes in this area for year‐round residents and local workers. As in the rest of the nation, manufactured homes in Delaware are frequently being placed on the owner’s land instead of on leased land, in a manufactured housing community. However, the most Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005 American Community comprehensive sources of information about the Survey housing stock that are available at the local level – the decennial Census and the American Community Survey (ACS) – do not differentiate between manufactured homes on leased land or on land owned by the homeowner. Both are counted as owner‐ occupied in the Census and ACS. Information about manufactured housing communities has traditionally been held by a web of different local government offices and not compiled or collected at the state level. Tracking down the number of communities, their location, and the number of homes/lots in them has been a time‐consuming and challenging task in Delaware, one that has largely fallen to the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority (DMHRA) in its efforts to collect the monthly lot assessment that funds the Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund. Looking at materials from the Relocation Authority, approximately 190 communities consisting of over 23,000 leased lots have paid into the Trust Fund. A 2005 study by Dr. Michael Arnold of the University of Delaware estimated a relatively high compliance rate of 85 to 92 percent for communities and lots paying into the Relocation Trust Fund. As the Authority has continued to develop and the Trust Manufactured Housing = Affordable Housing Fund is more established, it is likely that compliance has only increased in recent years. “Between 1993 and 1999, manufactured housing accounted for more than one‐sixth of the growth National data indicate that between 30 and 35% of in the owner‐occupied housing stock. For manufactured homes are located on leased land. particular submarkets the share is considerably While this is a rough measure, it is the only one higher. For example, among households with very‐ available to estimate the number of manufactured low incomes (that is, less than 50 percent of area homes in Delaware on leased land, short of an actual median), 23 percent of homeownership growth list including each community. As the DMHRA between 1993 and 1999 came through assembles such information, an estimate using ACS manufactured housing. For southern households data is useful for comparison purposes. the figure was 30 percent, and for rural households, 35 percent. Indeed, in the rural South Applying the national figure of a 35% probability that manufactured home purchases accounted for a a home is located on a leased lot to the American stunning 63 percent of the increase in very‐low Community Survey estimates indicate about 13,500 income homeownership.” (Apgar, et al, 2002, p. 3) manufactured homes on leased lots in Delaware. Clearly, Delaware exceeds the national average of 11

35% of homes on leased land, as the number of leased lots paying into the Relocation Trust Fund far exceeds 13,500. Simply applying the 23,000 leased lots that have paid into the Relocation Trust Fund to the 2005 – 2007 ACS estimate of 40,763 indicates that at least 56% of manufactured homes in Delaware are located on leased land. TABLE 3 Estimated Manufactured Homes on Leased Land, Delaware and Counties, 2007 Manufactured Homes on Manufactured Homes on Leased Land – Estimated at Manufactured Manufactured Homes Leased Land – Estimated at 65% (Foremost Insurance Homes on 35% (national average) 2002 Delaware survey) Leased Land – (2005 ‐ DMHRA Margin Range within Range within Range within Records 2007 ACS Estimate Estimate of Error Margin of Error Margin of Error Margin of Error Estimate) Kent County 8,908 649 8,259 – 9,557 3,118 2,891 – 3,345 5,790 5,368 – 6,212 4,521 New Castle 3,921 3,537 – 4,306 County 6,033 592 5,441 – 6,625 2,112 1,904 – 2,319 4,939 Sussex County 25,822 1,059 24,763 – 26,881 9,038 8,667 – 9,408 16,784 16,096 – 17,473 13,501 Delaware 40,763 1,362 39,401 – 42,125 14,267 13,790 – 14,744 26,496 25,611 – 27,381 23,122* Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005 ‐ 2007 American Community Survey Estimates, Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority information compiled by DSHA, September 2008 *Location information not available for 5 communities comprising 66 units. Foremost Insurance Group has long conducted a national survey of manufactured homeowners with a variety of questions on income, ownership, demographic and other information. In addition to a national report, state‐level reports are also available. There are, however, major drawbacks, particularly non‐ scientific sampling (the survey is sent to their customers) and, in some states, small sample sizes. For Delaware, the number of respondents is only a few hundred. Without sampling or weighting, it is difficult to apply statistics from these surveys to the entire population of manufactured homeowners in Delaware. However, the above analysis using 2005 ‐ 2007 ACS estimates and national averages for percentage of homes on leased land does support Foremost’s statistics on whether homes are on the homeowner’s personal real estate or leased land. In 2002, Foremost’s report for Delaware indicated that only 33% of manufactured homes in Delaware are placed on land owned by the homeowner, compared to 65% nationally. The real number of manufactured homes on leased land in Delaware is likely somewhere in the middle of these estimates, especially considering that 1) while some established communities continue to expand, few new land‐lease manufactured housing communities have opened in Delaware in recent years, and 2) the number of new homes placed on leased land continues to decrease, with only 26% of new homes being placed in manufactured housing communities nationally in 2007 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manufactured Housing Survey). Demographics Owners of manufactured homes generally have lower incomes, are either older or younger households, are more likely to be headed by a white householder, and tend to be in slightly smaller households (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census and 2005 ‐ 2007 ACS; HUD, 2007 American Housing Survey). Average income for owners of manufactured homes is well below income for all owner‐occupied housing units ‐ $39,110 compared to $68,167 in the 2000 Census. The average income of households renting manufactured homes also lags behind incomes of all renter households, at $30,269 compared to $38,246 12

in 2000. The 2005 American Housing Survey reported median income of $27,452 for households in manufactured housing, compared to $44,503 for all households and $55,211 for households in single‐ family detached homes. CHART 4 National statistics on the race of manufactured home occupants are also reflected in Delaware. Owners and renters of manufactured homes are more likely to be white compared to the general population of all households (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005 ‐ 2007 ACS). In the period 2005 – 2007, 83.4 percent of households in manufactured housing in Delaware were white, close to the national estimate of 84.6 percent. Manufactured housing and manufactured housing communities are popular as retirement homes for older Americans. In addition to their appeal and popularity, manufactured housing is a major source of Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census affordable housing for this population as it is for the general population (Kochera, 2003). Percentages of households aged 55 to 74 are higher in manufactured housing than in the overall stock. Typically fixed incomes make older manufactured homeowners in land‐lease communities particularly vulnerable to rent increases and other unexpected costs. HUD’s 2007 American Housing Survey reports that, nationally, the median income for an elderly householder in a manufactured or mobile home was $21,067, compared to $29,576 for all households in manufactured homes and $47,632 for all households. Kochera (2003) cites that nationally, about 36% of manufactured homeowners age 65 and older reside in manufactured housing communities. TABLE 4 Percentage of Households by Race and Manufactured Housing, United States and Delaware, 2005 ‐ 2007 Estimates United States Delaware Households in Households in All Households Manufactured All Households Manufactured Housing Housing Margin Margin Margin Margin Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate of Error of Error of Error of Error White Alone Householder 78.12% 0.10% 84.58% 0.02% 76.26% 0.29% 83.41% 6.00% Black or African‐American 11.68% 0.02% 7.92% 0.10% 18.69% 0.35% 11.96% 1.85% Alone Householder Hispanic or Latino 10.71% 0.02% 10.21% 0.03% 4.09% 0.21% 4.70% 0.24% Householder Non‐Hispanic or Latino 72.25% 0.09% 78.75% 0.04% 73.84% 0.23% 81.30% 5.85% Householder Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005 ‐ 2007 American Community Survey Estimates 13

TABLE 5 Age of Householder for Manufactured Homes, United States, 2007 Percentage of Households in Percentage of All Households Total Manufactured Homes Total Under 25 6,273,000 5.67% 349,000 5.04% 25 to 29 8,809,000 7.96% 485,000 7.01% 30 to 34 9,571,000 8.65% 607,000 8.77% 35 to 44 21,756,000 19.65% 1,262,000 18.24% 45 to 54 23,208,000 20.97% 1,467,000 21.20% 55 to 64 18,211,000 16.45% 1,222,000 17.66% 65 to 74 11,700,000 10.57% 881,000 12.73% 75 and older 11,165,000 10.09% 647,000 9.35% Total 110,693,000 6,920,000 Source: HUD, 2007 American Housing Survey 2007 data indicate that nationally, 40% of households in manufactured homes are over the age of 55, compared to 37% of all households. The 2000 Census, the most recent source of data breaking out age of householder by type of unit at the state or local level, indicate a slightly larger gap for Delaware. 41.5% of all households in manufactured homes in Delaware in 2000 were over age 55, compared to 36.6% for all households. TABLE 6 Age of Householder for Manufactured Homes, Delaware, 2000 All Households in % of all Households In Age Group as a % Age Group as a Households in Manufactured Age Group that are in of All Households % of All Age Group Homes Manufactured Homes in MH Households Under 25 13,885 1,378 9.92% 4.83% 4.65% 25 ‐ 34 49,476 4,948 10.00% 17.35% 16.56% 35 ‐ 44 67,524 5,710 8.46% 20.02% 22.60% 45 ‐ 54 58,524 4,649 7.94% 16.30% 19.59% 55 ‐ 64 41,972 4,525 10.78% 15.87% 14.05% 65 ‐ 74 37,250 4,426 11.88% 15.52% 12.47% 75 + 30,105 2,884 9.58% 10.11% 10.08% 298,736 28,520 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census Households in manufactured housing tend to be smaller than households in other homes. Nationally, 63% of households in manufactured homes had only 1 or 2 persons in 2007. Households of this size are only 60% of all households. 1 to 2 person households comprised only 55% of all households in other single‐ family detached or attached homes. 14

TABLE 7 Household Size for Households in Manufactured Homes, United States, 2007 Manufactured Percentage of Percentage of All Homes Homes Households in MH All Households 1 person 2,031,000 29.35% 29,996,000 27.10% 2 persons 2,322,000 33.55% 36,724,000 33.18% 3 persons 928,000 13.41% 17,522,000 15.83% 4 persons 963,000 13.92% 15,712,000 14.19% 5 or more persons 676,000 9.77% 10,737,000 9.69% Total 6,920,000 110,691,000 Source: HUD, 2007 American Housing Survey Unit Characteristics The HUD Code All new manufactured homes are built to Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These standards, often called the “HUD Code”, define a manufactured home as CHART 5 dwelling units of at least 320 square feet in size with a permanent chassis to assure initial and continued transportability. The Code covers Body and Frame Requirements, Thermal Protection, Plumbing, Electrical, Fire Safety, and other aspects of the home. Homes are built to different standards for different Wind Zones and Snow Loads for different areas of the country. Each manufactured home built in the U.S. after June 1976 must contain a red HUD label, certifying that it has been constructed in accordance with the HUD code. Homes also include a Data Plate, a paper label Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manufactured Housing Survey inside the home (often in a cabinet or closet) containing information about the manufacturing plant, serial numbers and model designation, date of manufacture, a list of factory‐ installed equipment such as appliances, and a reference to the Roof Load Zone and Wind Zone to which the home was designed. HUD has agreements with 38 state governments to conduct checks of plant records and respond to consumer complaints related to manufacturing, performance, quality and construction issues. The state government designates a State Administrative Agency (SAA). HUD staff carry out these functions in the other 12 states without SAAs, including Delaware. Installation There are two basic types of foundations for manufactured homes, simple and permanent. In a simple foundation, the home is set on steel or concrete piers on top of square footers or pads of concrete. The home is then fastened or anchored to the ground. Types of permanent foundations vary widely, but use permanent full and load‐bearing perimeter walls for support. Typically the floor joists are attached to the foundation wall. Multi‐section homes, which are the majority of new homes placed, must be joined 15

together and sealed. The wheels and hitch are removed, and the unit is connected to site utilities. Installers often also add skirting if the unit is not placed on a full foundation, stairs, porches, or other on‐ site additions (HAC, 2007 and Apgar, et. al, 2002). Proper installation can have considerable impacts on the future stability, security, and even the condition and wear of the home. While homes are built to the federal HUD code, installation standards have typically been set at the state or local level, often haphazardly. In 2000, the federal Manufactured Housing Improvement Act was passed. This law required each state to institute a manufactured home installation program and dispute resolution program within five years. Specifically, adoption of standards for manufactured home installation, implementation of an installation program addressing training, licensing, certification and inspections, and implementation of a dispute resolution program were required. Over the same time period, HUD developed national standards for manufactured home installation which state standards must meet or exceed. In state legislation signed in July 2005, authority for these programs was assigned to the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation. A Board of Manufactured Home Installation to set standards and fees for licensing of manufactured home installers and installation inspectors was also created by this legislation. Beginning one year from its enactment into law, all manufactured homes in Delaware must be installed by a licensed manufactured home installer and inspected by a Board certified inspector. (24 Del. C., Chapter 44) Today’s Manufactured Housing Advances in quality and design have made manufactured housing a popular, high‐quality product comparable to site‐built housing in durability. Construction and transportation advances mean that there is more variation than ever possible in manufactured homes: pitched roofs, bay windows, multi‐sections, as well as numerous options for on‐site additions like awnings, patio covers, porches, decks, and garages. Larger, multi‐section homes are more and more CHART 6 popular, and among new homes, are much more common than single‐section homes. Nationally, 61.6% of manufactured homes are single‐section units, 36.7% are double‐section, and 1.2% are triple‐section or larger (HUD, 2007 American Housing Survey). Affordable prices, a quick sales process and impressive array of available options all make manufactured housing an attractive option for buyers. Genz (2001, 396‐398) identifies three core factors: prices, quality of construction, and marketing. Compared particularly to rental housing, new manufactured homes have strong Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manufactured Housing Survey appeal and value for the money. While interest rates are high, longer loan terms and the low cost of the home itself can make purchase of a new or late model used home comparable to rental costs. Despite long‐held stereotypes about low quality and rapid deterioration, several studies indicate that manufactured homes have a fairly long life span, up to 55 years, and the vast majority of new homes feature high‐quality construction and attractive designs. Finally, Genz identifies the fundamentally different marketing system for manufactured housing as a factor. Comparison shopping for a site‐built home, new or existing, is time‐consuming, and rests heavily on location. When shopping for a new manufactured home, the consumer sees the home first on the 16

dealer’s lot, and can shop for the same options a buyer of a new site‐built home would shop for. While delivery time may vary depending upon whether the home is built to order or purchased off the dealer’s lot and on the amount of site work CHART 7 necessary to prepare the lot, it is still typically very fast compared to new site‐built homes. In many cases the dealer helps to coordinate every aspect of the sale, placement and financing. For buyers using a personal‐property loan instead of a conventional home loan, the application and approval process for their loan is also significantly easier: “In‐house dealer financing programs can accommodate buyers of widely varying qualifications, with approvals coming back in as little as an hour.” (Genz, 398) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manufactured Housing Survey As manufactured homes have grown in popularity as permanent residences, are increasingly placed on private property, and appeal to a broader market, the average size of units has steadily increased, approaching 1,800 square feet for double‐section units in 2007, up from about 1,400 square feet for double‐section units in 1990. As double or multi‐ section units become more popular, and as single‐section units are more limited by design, the average size of single‐section units has not changed as much, only increasing by about 100 square feet since 1990. Of the existing stock of manufactured housing nationally, 61% are single‐section units. However, in recent years double‐section units have pulled far ahead as a percentage of new units placed. In 1985, 17% of new units placed in Delaware were double‐section, compared to 31% nationally. By 1995, that had increased to 47% in Delaware and 48% nationally. In the mid‐2000s, percentages of new units that are double‐section hover between 70 and 80% both in Delaware and nationally. Affordability Huge variation and options in features, floor plans, and sizes mean that prices for a new manufactured home, without land, can range from $20,000 for a new single‐section home with basic features to well over $100,000 for a multi‐section home with numerous options. Still, manufactured homes are consistently shown to have dramatically lower construction costs per square foot than site‐built homes, even when the value of land is removed. The Manufactured Housing Institute estimates that “Depending on the region of the country, construction cost per square foot for a new manufactured home averages anywhere from 10 to 35% less than a comparable site‐built home, excluding the cost of land.” (http://www.manufacturedhousing.org) What makes manufactured housing so much more affordable? A centralized building code (the HUD Code) and the ability to control and streamline the construction process are major advantages. Apgar, Calder, Collins and Duda (2002) note five factors creating cost savings in the production process: • Economies of scale in high‐volume materials purchase • Ability to better coordinate production using assembly‐line techniques • A controlled environment devoid of weather or other delays • Standardized design and materials • Reduced costs (primarily in time) of securing approval from local code officials 17

Average sales prices of new homes have risen steadily, although at a higher rate in Delaware in the past few years, likely because the majority of new homes now being placed in the state are double‐section homes. In 2007, the average sales price for a new manufactured home in Delaware was $82,900, compared to $65,100 nationally. For a double‐section unit, the average sales price in Delaware in 2007 was $88,400, compared to $74,100 nationally. For single‐section homes, the average sales price in Delaware was $30,200 and $37,200 nationally. However, it is important to keep in mind that these averages are often based on a fairly small number of units at the state level – about 500 units placed in Delaware in 2007. The nature of averages (being more sensitive to the effects of outliers, or prices at the highest and lowest ends of the range) and the small number of units may explain what look like large year‐to‐year price fluctuations, as between 2005 and 2007. Comparing sales prices, average costs per square foot, and values between manufactured homes and site‐ built homes is challenging. It is difficult to fully correct for the cost and value of land and site work. The Census Bureau does report on this annually and provides a comparison of costs per square foot for new manufactured and new site‐built homes. With the average cost per square foot for a new single family site‐built home in 2007, excluding the cost of land, more than doubling the average cost per square foot for a new manufactured home, it is apparent that even with added costs for transportation and site work, manufactured housing provides clear cost benefits. TABLE 8 Cost and Size Comparison: New Manufactured Homes and New Single Family Site‐Built Homes New Manufactured Homes New Single Family Site‐Built Homes Avg Sales Avg Sq Avg Cost per Avg Sales Derived Avg Avg Sq Avg Price Per Sq Price Foot Sq Ft Price Land Price Foot Ft (Excl. Land) 1997 $39,800 1,420 $28.03 $176,200 $33,227 2,140 $66.81 2007 $65,100 1,595 $40.82 $313,600 $84,268 2,479 $92.51 Increase, 1997 ‐ 2007 63.57% 12.32% 45.63% 77.98% 153.61% 15.84% 38.47% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census SUMMARY: Characteristics of Manufactured Housing in the U.S. and Delaware • Manufactured housing is a critical source of affordable housing, especially as homeownership for low‐income households, in both the U.S. and Delaware. With almost 41,000 units in Delaware, it is 10% of the state’s housing stock and home to approximately 70,000 Delawareans. • Manufactured housing is especially predominant in Sussex County, home to over 60% of the manufactured homes in the state. Almost a quarter of the County’s housing stock is manufactured homes, many of which are held for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. • While it is difficult to quantify the exact number of manufactured homes on leased land in Delaware, records from the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority indicate at least 23,000, or 56% of the manufactured homes in the state are on leased land. This is well above cited national figures of 30 to 35%. • Households in manufactured housing are predominantly white (85% in Delaware as of 2005 ‐ 2007), more likely to be in smaller households, and slightly more likely to be older households. As of the 2000 Census, 41% of householders in manufactured homes in Delaware were over 55. • Advances in construction, quality, amenities and design, and significant cost savings over site‐built housing have made manufactured housing a popular and affordable permanent housing choice for millions of Americans and thousands of Delawareans. The majority of manufactured homes, once placed, are not moved, and most new homes (close to 80%) are multi‐section homes. 18

LEGAL AND FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING New manufactured homes today, once placed, are rarely moved. Costs to move a home vary based on the distance of the move, size of the home, and post‐placement additions that must be removed, and the amount of utility and other work to prepare the land. For the vast majority of homeowners, a manufactured home is a permanent housing choice, despite legal, financial and tenure structures that continue to treat it as an impermanent and mobile one. As a result, today’s manufactured housing exists in a “parallel legal universe” of titling, land ownership, and financing from the rest of the housing stock and market (Genz, 2001). Titling of Manufactured Homes All manufactured homes in Delaware All new manufactured homes are titled through the Delaware are initially titled as personal Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), for a fee of $25 ($35 for a property. In Delaware, as in most home with a lien) plus a 3.75% document fee based on the sale states, new manufactured homes are price or current trade‐in value of the home, whichever is higher. titled and registered through the For new homes, this application process is typically handled by Department of Motor Vehicles. If a the dealer. Each section of a multi‐section home will have its home is to be placed on the buyer’s own title. In order to be declared real property – a main property, typically on a permanent requirement in order to access conventional mortgage financing foundation, title can be surrendered ‐ this Certificate of Title must be surrendered. The process for and the home can be classified as real surrendering the Certificate of Title and classifying a estate in a process through the manufactured home as real property is slightly different in each County where it is located. As more county, but the main steps are: and more new homes are placed on 1) Notifying the County to request a surrender of title. the buyer’s privately owned land, 2) A form/application/fee is required. instead of in land‐lease manufactured 3) The home is inspected by a County official to ensure that it housing communities, titling as real is affixed to the land, its wheels and axles removed and it estate is becoming increasingly is anchored to the land. common. In 1990, 89% of new 4) The County issues a letter or other certification to the manufactured homes nationally were DMV that the home meets its requirements to be titled as personal property. By 2007, considered real property. this has decreased to 64%. This has 5) The DMV issues a C‐grade classification certificate and a corresponded with an increase in the notice to the County that the Certificate of Title has been number of homes placed on “outside surrendered. manufactured housing communities” Sources: Fannie Mae Guidance on Manufactured Home Titling in – the designation used by the Census Delaware, Delaware Department of Motor Vehicles Manufactured Housing Survey, which collects and reports this information. From 1990 to 2007, the percentage of homes placed outside manufactured housing communities increased from 59% to 74%, with a correlated decrease in the percentage of homes placed in manufactured housing communities, down from 41% to 28%. Still, millions of homes, new and existing, are classified as personal property, and are located on rented land, generally in investor‐owned communities. The designation of manufactured homes as personal property and land‐lease form of tenure combine to form a constellation of legal and financial differences from site‐built housing that have a broad impact on asset‐building potential for manufactured home owners, with the greatest impact on owners of homes on leased land. 19

Challenges for Homeowners in Land‐Lease Communities Analysis of HUD American Housing Survey data by the AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons) indicate that 32% of manufactured homes are located in land‐lease communities (2004). Foremost Insurance Group, which conducts an annual national survey of manufactured home owners, similarly reports that in 2005, 35% of respondents owned homes in manufactured housing communities CHART 8 where they rented the lot. Land‐lease communities for manufactured housing have their benefits, particularly for lower‐income homebuyers/homeowners in areas where land costs are high and would otherwise make homeownership impossible. For older and retired households, there is often appeal in many services being taken care of in a community. Many communities offer a variety of amenities as well. However, owning a large, fairly immobile asset on land over which the owner has no control, possibly only a fairly short‐term (year or a few years) lease, and no guaranteed predictability of future rent costs is Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manufactured Housing Survey fundamentally insecure. Considering that asset is also often a household’s largest asset, and that asset is also a household’s home, creates even more insecurity. While the majority of manufactured housing communities are certainly operated well, reasonably, and with consideration for homeowners, the vulnerability is inherent in the form of tenure itself. Leases can be ended, rents can be increased far beyond homeowners’ abilities to pay, communities can be sold and closed. Community closure is perhaps the greatest risk to homeowners on leased land, and it is a looming threat for many in Delaware. High land values provide strong incentives for community owners to consider selling or converting the use of their land. When a community is closed, the homeowner has no choice but to move or abandon their home. Relocating a home is costly, and homes are subject to damage during transportation. Moving a home has also been shown to affect future appreciation (Jewell, 2003). Many older homes, or homes with various on‐site additions or modifications, cannot be moved. There are relatively few open lots in manufactured housing communities, and very few, if any, new communities are opening in Delaware. Many communities have strict design and age standards that exclude homes more than a few years old. In many older communities, homeowners may have no choice but to abandon their homes, which, while of little market value, have immense value to them as a source of affordable housing. Financing Issues with how manufactured homes are sited, titled and appraised make them difficult candidates for long‐term, conventional mortgages. Results of this include fewer protections for buyers and owners, higher costs, and effects on asset‐building for owners. Financing for manufactured housing takes two very different forms: 1) conventional mortgage lending, generally restricted to units on land owned by the homeowner; and 2) chattel lending, or personal property loans, typically for units on leased land or not titled as real estate. Within both of these markets, it is often difficult to secure financing for purchase of an existing manufactured home. 20

A variety of features of the manufactured housing market combine to create in some cases validly unacceptably high risk for lenders; in others cases, “Even though a unfamiliarity, stereotypes and negative perceptions of “trailers” have undue manufactured home impact. The product’s (theoretical, at least) mobility, unclear appreciation today bears no patterns, typically high loan to value ratios, unstable resale market, and, for resemblance to a “trailer,” it is still all too homes in communities, insecure land tenancy, unpredictable land lease frequently sold and costs, and classification as personal property pose major challenges to financed like one.” lending. Loosened standards in manufactured home lending in the mid‐ (West, 2006, p. 36) 1990s led to a dramatic rise in defaults and repossessions in the late 1990s through 2002. The lack of an effective resale market further hindered lenders’ ability to recoup losses. Overall, the result is that buyers of manufactured homes simply pay more. The 2007 American Housing Survey indicates that while only 10.3% of all homes have a current mortgage interest rate over 8%, a third (33.1%) of manufactured homes have rates over 8%. The comparison with recently constructed homes is even more stark: only 6.8% of new homes built in the four years before the survey (2002‐2006) had interest rates over 8%. The median mortgage interest rate on manufactured homes is almost a percentage point higher: 7.2%, compared to 6.4% for all homes. TABLE 9 Current Mortgage Interest Rate, United States, 2007 % of All New Construction % of All New Manufactured % of all Manufactured All Units Units 4 Years Construction Homes Homes Less than 6% 17,937,000 38.61% 1,450,000 37.85% 547,000 26.37% 6 to 7.9% 23,744,000 51.11% 2,121,000 55.36% 840,000 40.50% 8 to 9.9% 3,613,000 7.78% 200,000 5.22% 399,000 19.24% 10 to 11.9% 814,000 1.75% 35,000 0.91% 192,000 9.26% 12 to 13.9% 214,000 0.46% 18,000 0.47% 60,000 2.89% 14 to 15.9% 73,000 0.16% 5,000 0.13% 18,000 0.87% 16 to 17.9% 15,000 0.03% ‐ ‐ 6,000 0.29% 18 to 19.9% 30,000 0.06% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20% or more 21,000 0.05% 2000 0.05% 12,000 0.58% Median 6.4 6.4 7.2 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2007 American Housing Survey Conventional Financing To access conventional financing, manufactured homes generally must be on a permanent foundation, located on the owner’s land, and be titled as real property. For some lenders and programs, only new homes will qualify. Appraisal requirements for manufactured homes are also often stringent. Analysis of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, which include only conventional mortgage loans, indicate that even when manufactured home buyers are able to access conventional financing, their loans are generally more expensive than site‐built home loans. Banks are required to report pricing information when a loan is more than 3% above the Treasury rate. Almost half (47%) of all conventional loans for manufactured homes fell in this category, compared to only 25% of conventional 1‐ to 4‐family home purchase loans. The haphazard resale market for manufactured homes also affects their viability for financing. Many standards for accessing conventional mortgage financing for a manufactured home do not allow the purchase of anything but new homes, which limits the availability and increases the cost of loans – 21

reducing what buyers can afford to pay for an existing home – further affecting appreciation potential for new homes. As West (2006) notes: “Inasmuch as the lack of a resale market limits the collateral value of manufactured homes, a vicious cycle is created. The lack of credit available for purchase of existing manufactured homes severely restricts the pool of potential buyers. Fewer buyers who are willing and able to buy an existing home means lower collateral value: as demand shrinks, lenders’ perception of risk – for both new and existing manufactured housing ‐ grows. After all, what would happen if the home owner needs to sell before the loan is paid off?” (40) West (2006) and others (Jewell, 2003, Apgar et al, 2002) have also identified the lack of a robust secondary market for conventional manufactured home loans as an issue, which reduces the volume of loans available and increases costs. This situation is improving, and both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have standard guidelines for manufactured home loans and will purchase mortgages on manufactured homes titled as real estate via approved lender partners using their standard MH underwriting and appraisal guidelines. Fannie Mae has also developed a “MH SelectTM Intiatitve,” a collaborative effort between Fannie Mae and the industry Manufactured Housing Institute. The program offers more financing flexibility for high quality manufactured homes when manufacturers and dealers/retailers commit to specific design and service standards. Government Programs Financing for manufactured homes is increasingly available through traditional government homeownership programs, although this is largely limited to homes titled as real estate and placed on the owner’s privately owned property. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development (RD) 502 Direct Loan purchase program allows the financing of HUD‐certified manufactured homes, when purchased through RD‐approved dealers and placed on a permanent foundation. The extremely low interest rates available through the 502 Direct Loan program make it an important resource for low‐ income buyers in rural areas. Loans can include the home itself as well as related site development work. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) provides mortgage insurance on loans made by FHA‐approved lenders nationally. The FHA Title I program may be used for the purchase or refinancing of a manufactured home, including those designated as personal property and on leased land. The Title II program may be used for the purchase of a home when placed on a permanent foundation and classified as real estate. Low loan limits have long limited the scope of this program, although they can be increased up to 85% in designated high‐cost areas. The program allows for a maximum loan term of 25 years for a multi‐section home and lot combination, requires a 5% down payment and owner‐occupancy. While challenged by a history of high default rates and low usage (only slightly more than 1,400 loans in 2006), FHA Title I is the only active federal program offering insurance for loans on a manufactured home only, without associated land. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008 included several provisions to modernize FHA’s manufactured housing programs, including increases to loan limits; codification of a previous regulation applying a section of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) prohibiting the referral of fees by a lender to dealers, manufacturers, or other parties for the Title I program; requiring a three year lease term for home‐only loans on leased land in Title I; and allowing long‐term leasehold arrangements under Title II. These changes are expected to increase volume and provide leadership in the industry. The Act also includes a directive for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide leadership in the manufactured housing market and facilitate a secondary market for manufactured housing loans for low‐ and moderate‐ income homeowners. 22

State housing finance agency programs also are increasingly inclusive of manufactured housing. In Delaware, the Delaware State Housing Authority’s (DSHA) main homeownership programs, the Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond (SFMRB), which provides low‐interest mortgages through participating lenders, and downpayment and settlement assistance programs allow for manufactured homes. Homes must be on a permanent foundation, classified as real estate, and meet any other requirements of the lender and insurer, which may vary. While great advances have been made in access to conventional financing for buyers of manufactured homes that will be titled as real estate and placed on personal property, there are few government programs providing financing for either existing homes in, or new homes to be placed in, manufactured housing communities. The challenges that make financing for these homes difficult in the private market are equally difficult to housing finance agencies. In New Hampshire, where nonprofit and public agencies have made major strides in advancing resident ownership of manufactured housing communities, the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund (NHCLF) recognized that “while resident ownership secures the land for the benefit of the homeowners in a community, the lack of conventional financing still undermines homeownership on that land.” (Bradley, 2003) In 2003, the NHCLF originated retail mortgage lending services, for new home purchase, existing home purchase, refinancing and repair loans to residents of the almost 80 manufactured housing communities it has helped convert to resident ownership. It also provides first‐time buyers access to state HFA loans. Advances in financing for manufactured housing in New Hampshire have also benefited greatly from state law that allows titling of manufactured homes placed on leased land as real estate (George and Barr, 2005). As discussed in the next section, resident ownership of MHCs can positively impact many of the barriers that have long made lending for homes on leased land challenging. Personal Property Lending To purchase a new home that will not be titled as real estate, buyers must use personal property, or “chattel” loans. Even some buyers who will place the home on their own land may still use personal property loans and finance the land separately. Personal property loans for manufactured homes are largely dominated by consumer finance companies and a few that specialize in manufactured home finance. These loans have much higher costs – the price of fast decisions, easy approval processes, and looser credit requirements. Analysis of Affordable Housing Survey data in Apgar, et. al (2002) indicated that manufactured homes on rented land had median terms of 9 percent interest for 15 years (or 8.7% interest for 18 years if on owned land) compared to median terms of 7.5% interest over 25 years for single‐family site‐built homes. A less formal survey conducted by the Consumers Union in Austin, Texas, found that a borrower with good credit and a five percent down payment would likely have been charged anywhere from 2 to 4 percentage points more by manufactured housing lenders than by a conventional mortgage (Consumers Union, 2000). While the industry has made great strides to reverse the negative stereotypes of high‐pressure sales, inflating prices, steering to loans with kickbacks for the retailer, and predatory lending, studies of consumer complaints indicate that some of these concerns are indeed still grounded in practice in some areas of the industry (Consumers Union, 2003). Further, chattel loans are not subject to many consumer protection laws that apply to conventional mortgages, such as the Truth in Lending Act, Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), nor are they subject to Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reporting requirements. RESPA requires disclosure of settlement costs and prohibits kickbacks or referral fees, meaning that retailers “can and frequently do earn commissions, rebates or other payments on loan originations, credit life insurance, property insurance, and other services arranged for at the time the loan is closed.” (HUD and NAHB, 2000, 41) Consumer protections for foreclosure on conventional mortgage loans are also far broader than for personal property loans. 23

Appreciation A core challenge to improving financing for buyers and wealth‐building opportunities for owners is understanding the value of manufactured homes, how it changes, and why. That manufactured homes only depreciate is a widely‐held belief, but numerous studies indicate that this is not necessarily the truth, nor is depreciation inherent to the home itself. Further, imperfections in the manufactured housing finance market and the overall legal structure of “Contrary to popular belief, depreciation manufactured home ownership and placement have serious is not inherent to the housing unit; it is a effects on appreciation. As noted earlier, the turmoil in the matter of market function. By focusing manufactured housing market in the early part of this decade on land ownership and access to decent only worsened perceptions of risk and appreciation in financing, communities and affordable manufactured housing. housing can be successfully preserved and individuals can build a housing asset The Consumers Union completed one of the most in manufactured home communities.” comprehensive studies on manufactured housing appreciation in 2003, using data from the 1985‐1999 AHS (Ward, French and Giraud, 2006, p. 3) Panel as well as county appraisal data from several counties in Texas and extensive literature review. The study sought to investigate the question of, if depreciation is not inherent to the product itself, what is the source of the depreciation (or lack of appreciation) in manufactured homes? And, why do some manufactured homes appreciate more than others. The Consumers Union study found that, overall, average appreciation rates of manufactured homes packaged with owned land are statistically in line with the site‐built market. Just like site‐built homes, the value of manufactured homes are affected strongly by their location, condition and maintenance. Land ownership, location, purchase price and maintenance expenditures are among the factors that predict appreciation in manufactured homes. Key findings of the report are that: The Consumers Union (2003) report identified the following as factors influencing appreciation in manufactured housing: • In total, manufactured homes - As in site‐built housing, manufactured homes are affected by appreciated 6% less per year than the appreciation of homes in their neighborhood. site‐built homes, but those - Owning the lot leads to higher appreciation of the home packaged with land appreciated itself. similarly to site‐built homes. On - Larger homes appreciate more. - Intensive use and overcrowding lower appreciation. average, manufactured homes on - Investing one percent of the value of the home in leased land depreciated. maintenance yields a half percent improvement in the value. • Manufactured homes, both on - Moving a home has a negative effect on its future owned and rented land, had appreciation: homes still on their first site tended to have significantly less predictability and greater appreciation than other homes. higher variation in the appreciation - Homes in “urban” census areas did better than rural homes. - The fact that a home was built since 1980 (a proxy for 1976, of the units. the implementation of the HUD Code) does not ensure • Factors driving appreciation of higher appreciation. While positive, this was not a significant manufactured homes are factor. structurally different than the - For homes placed on the owner’s personal property, lot size factors driving site‐built was significant, with homes on larger lots performing better. appreciation (p 9). - For those homes located in communities, higher starting lot rent translated to higher appreciation. A clear message from the research on value and appreciation in manufactured housing is that ownership of land is, by far, the most important factor driving appreciation in manufactured homes. While numerous other factors affect appreciation of manufactured homes, just as in site‐built homes, insecure land tenure is of paramount concern and is 24

“the single most important attribute for equity growth for this type of housing” (HAC, 2005, 29). Two results of this form of tenure – titling as personal property and subsequent lack of conventional financing – further challenge equity growth for owners of manufactured homes. SUMMARY – Legal and Financial Framework of Manufactured Housing • For the vast majority of manufactured homeowners, a manufactured home is a permanent housing product, despite legal, financial and tenure structures that continue to treat it as an impermanent and highly mobile one. • All new manufactured homes are titled as personal property. Homes placed on a permanent foundation, typically on the owners property, can have the title surrendered to become classified as real estate. • While land lease communities remain a popular option, the majority of new manufactured homes (74% in 2007, nationally) are placed outside manufactured housing communities. Subsequently, a steadily increasing percentage is titled as real estate. Still, millions of homes, new and existing, are classified as personal property and located on leased land. • While the majority of manufactured housing communities are operated well and with consideration for homeowners’ interests, the fact remains that owning a home on rented land over which the homeowner has no control, possibly a fairly short‐term lease, and no predictability of future rent costs and the constant possibility of community sale or closure creates a fundamentally vulnerable situation for the homeowner. As an extension of that vulnerability, the unique legal situation of manufactured housing creates issues with how homes are titled and financed. • Legally, manufactured homes are often still treated as mobile and impermanent housing, even though this is accurate for an increasingly small portion of the industry and homeowners. This creates issues with how homes are titled, valued, and resold that, combined, make them difficult candidates for long‐term conventional mortgages. Conventional financing for manufactured homes placed on personal property and permanent foundations has expanded significantly in recent years, but there is little progress for homes titled as personal property and on leased land. For these homes, a personal property loan is generally the only option. As a result, homeowners have fewer protections, face higher costs, and ultimately negative effects on their ability to build wealth through their home. • Despite widely held views that manufactured housing only depreciates, research indicates that depreciation is not necessarily inherent to manufactured housing itself, but a reflection of issues I the market. Just like site‐built homes, the value of manufactured homes are affected strongly by their location, condition and maintenance. Studies show that ownership or control over the land on which the home is placed affects appreciation more than any other factor. Less directly, appreciation in manufactured housing is also affected by the availability of financing, which is also tied to how homes are titled and sited. 25

RESIDENT OWNED COMMUNITIES (ROCS) The steady expansion of conventional lending for manufactured homes placed on private property indicates that many of the issues with lending for manufactured homes placed in manufactured housing communities are not the result of deficiencies in the product itself, as many have long believed. Rather, in many ways these challenges are in fact artifacts, direct and indirect, of this ultimately insecure form of tenure. The two main recommendations to improve appreciation (and subsequently asset‐building opportunities for owners) in manufactured housing are to 1) gain control of the land on which the home is sited; and 2) gain access to favorable home loans as close to conventional mortgages as possible (Jewell, 2003). The most common form of resident ownership for manufactured housing communities is a cooperative corporation. In this model, homeowners join together to form a corporation operating on one‐ member/one‐vote rule. Every household in a community can become a member and participate in the governance and operation of the community. Each household owns a share in the cooperative, which is governed by a member Board elected by the membership. In smaller communities, the Board and Committees may do the work of managing and operating the community directly; in larger ones, the Board may arrange for the contracting of a management agent. Stable rents, more secure tenure, having a voice in community management, and capital improvements are all clear benefits of resident ownership. While rents may be lower for homeowners in ROCs over time, there is not always an immediate drop in rents as new ROCs must often make major investments in the community’s infrastructure, such as water and septic systems and roads. In New Hampshire, where almost 90 communities have converted to resident ownership over the last 25 years, a recent evaluation study showed that homeowners in resident owned communities have “significant economic advantages over counterparts in investor‐owned communities, as evidenced by higher average home sales prices, faster home sales, and access to fixed rate home financing. Additionally, residents who own their communities consistently perceive greater control over and stability in their lot rents and governance, and worry less about being displaced because of park closure for redevelopment.” (Ward, French & Giraud, 2006, p. 4) While there are strong initiatives to convert MHCs to resident ownership in several states, notably Minnesota, California and Vermont, the work of the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund (NHCLF) stands out as a national model. Since the mid‐1980s, the NHCLF has provided financing and technical assistance resulting in the creation of almost 90 resident‐owned communities, 20% of the MHCs in the state. None of these communities has failed, defaulted or been sold. Key Elements for ROC Success The NHCLF’s strategy to convert MHCs to resident ownership recognized the short and long‐term elements for success. NHCLF’s comprehensive technical assistance addresses everything from community organizing to the provision of financing tools and long‐term technical assistance, particularly in organizing, management, and planning for and financing major community improvements. Conversion to resident ownership is a complicated process, especially as it is often under time constraints. Pre‐purchase, the community must organize, develop the cooperative structure and leadership, educate members, assemble the deal, legal documents, engineering, engage in negotiations for purchase, and financing. Post‐purchase, the cooperative is faced with developing and implementing a management plan, training 26

the Board, membership and committees, I’M HOME in Delaware: New Horizons engaging contractors and third parties, The Delaware Housing Coalition (DHC) and Diamond State CLT and developing leadership. (DSCLT) are I’M HOME local partners in Delaware. During the Unfortunately, comprehensive short and grant period, the coalition and its partners developed an long‐term technical assistance and access implementation plan for the Diamond State CLT’s first manufactured housing community, New Horizons Cooperative. to financing are of little use if The New Horizons Cooperative is an organization of poultry homeowners simply do not have the workers and other low income workers who are creating a opportunity to purchase the community. manufactured housing community with an agricultural In New Hampshire, a strong right of first enterprise in Sussex County. The homes will be affordable to refusal law has been critical to the households at 50% of area median income. The parcel will be success of NHCLF’s efforts. New located on Diamond State CLT land. Hampshire’s right of first refusal law Formed initially as a group of displaced manufactured housing gives homeowners time to form a park residents, New Horizons formed in 2003 in response to an cooperative, get financing, and make an unfair eviction notice, issued because residents had complained offer on their community. Community to the state about the use of illegal cesspools and lack of owners are required to give homeowners drinkable water. With DHC’s help, New Horizons fought the 18 months notice of park closure, and 60‐ eviction as a violation of residents’ fair housing rights and also day window of notice before sale to an offered to buy the land from the owner. While neither of these outside investor, during which the ultimately worked, New Horizons were able to win a one‐year, court‐mandated extension to their collective lease. “Eventually homeowners can organize the we had to leave,” says Rene. “Though we have been separated cooperative and match the outside offer. for the last year, we have continued to develop our cooperative This law has played a critical role in most and to work on coming back together as a stronger community of New Hampshire’s ROC conversions. than before.” With DHC and other local partners – agricultural extension agents, members of the nearby Presbyterian church, a Several other states have similar laws, local law firm and the DSCLT – cooperative members worked with various features. For example, steadily toward buying land for their new community in an Vermont’s law gives tax benefits to park agricultural area where they would be able to farm part of the owners who sell to residents in addition land together. In September 2007, the group parlayed their to a right of first refusal. California, home savings into a contract for the property on which they will build to over 5,400 manufactured housing their new home. communities, has also made great strides (http://www.diamondstateclt.org/docs/imhome_delaware.pdf) in resident ownership, although an exact number of how many have converted is unclear. The state Department of Housing and Community Development operates a Mobilehome Park Resident Ownership Program, enacted in 1984, to provide loans to homeowner groups to purchase their communities. Funds are also available to nonprofit sponsors. Funded by an annual $5 assessment on leased lots, the program has provided funds for 74 conversions, over 12,000 lots, as of December 2006. Initiatives to Advance ROCs As news of the success of the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund (NHCLF)’s activities to convert manufactured housing communities to resident ownership spread, many other states hoped to develop similar technical assistance and financing resources. Some have been successful, but national funders and groups recognized the need for a national‐level initiative to advance resident ownership in more areas without having to recreate a technical assistance and financing network in each state. In May 2008, the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund and Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) launched ROC USATM, which will take the model developed in New Hampshire to scale nationally. A network of Certified Technical Assistance Providers (CTAPs) will provide pre‐purchase and post‐purchase 27

training and technical assistance to residents of manufactured housing communities in 29 states. In addition to technical assistance through CTAPs, ROC USATM will also provide financing for conversions as well. The initiative launched with investments exceeding $8 million from the Ford Foundation, Fannie Mae, CFED, NCB Capital Impact, and the Loan Fund. Recognizing the importance – and potential ‐ of manufactured housing as a source of affordable housing for millions of households, in 2005 the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) launched Innovations in Manufactured Homes (I’M HOME), a comprehensive initiative to improve conditions for existing manufactured home owners, expand the supply of good quality, affordable housing, and to make sure that families who choose a manufactured home receive the same treatment and benefits as owners of any other type of home. With national and local partners and support from the Ford Foundation, I’M HOME invests resources to build capacity and carry out demonstration projects to: • build high‐quality manufactured homes; • develop and provide access to fair and responsibly‐priced mortgage financing; • address the challenges facing residents in manufactured housing park communities; and • advocate for public policies that help owners of manufactured homes. SUMMARY – Resident Owned Communities • Resident ownership of manufactured housing communities is a promising means to improve security of tenure for manufactured homeowners. In the most common form, a cooperative corporation, homeowners form and become members of a cooperative that purchases and operates the community. By owning a share of the corporation and having a say in the community’s ownership, homeowners can have greater 1) security against sale or closure of the community; 2) predictability of future lot rent costs; and 3) control over the governance of their community. • The opportunity to purchase the community, comprehensive pre‐ and post‐purchase technical assistance, and financing are key factors for the success of conversions to resident ownership. • Initiatives to advance resident ownership of manufactured housing communities have been very successful in some areas, and those successes are having real results for homeowners. A study done in New Hampshire, where the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund (NHCLF) has helped homeowners in 90 communities purchase their communities, indicates that homeowners in resident‐owned communities have “significant economic advantages over counterparts in investor‐owned communities, as evidenced by higher average home sales prices, faster home sales, and access to fixed rate home financing.” (Ward, French & Giraud, 2006, p. 4) 28

MANUFACTURED HOUSING TENURE ISSUES IN DELAWARE Landlord/Tenant Code The Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act (25 Del.C. §7001 to 7027) took effect on August 23, 2003. A major rewrite of the Mobile Home Lots and Leases Act, the new Act regulates and determines the rights, remedies and obligations of all parties to a rental agreement for a lot for a manufactured home in a manufactured housing community in Delaware. The new Act set out new and detailed standards for rental agreements, landlord and tenant obligations, fees, rules, home standards, sale of homes, termination of lease, and provisions intended to protect and assist homeowners in the event of a change of land use. It also created the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund and Authority, which has proved an important resource to assist homeowners to relocate or be compensated for the abandonment of their homes as a result of community closure. A detailed summary of the law is available online at http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/media/pdf/manuhoussumm.pdf. While the new Act was a major step forward in improving protections for manufactured home owners in land‐lease communities, issues remained. In the midst of the real estate boom, demand for land and prices developers were willing to pay, especially in Sussex County, skyrocketed. Several communities closed following sales and change of land use, and many others felt the pressure. Several large communities in Delaware were also sold to national investment companies, leaving homeowners feeling even more at risk. In Eastern Sussex County’s resort areas, many homeowners were faced with large and unexpected rent increases that many felt were essentially a form of “financial eviction” in order to reinvent communities as resort and retirement locations. Growing concerns about park closures and the lack of recourse for homeowners facing such rent increases led advocates to work to advance a variety of measures, notably a resident notification/right of first refusal and rent justification bills. Over the course of several years, numerous versions of these bills have been developed, introduced and debated. The various rent justification bills – which would require that lot rent increases be justified by increased operating costs or market conditions ‐ have been most contentious. Rent justification remains a priority for the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners Association (DMHOA) in the future. In 2008, advocates focused on achieving a right of first refusal to guarantee homeowners the opportunity to purchase their communities cooperatively, if the community is otherwise to be sold. After a lengthy negotiation process, representatives of manufactured home owners and community owners reached an agreement on House Bill 504 late in the 2008 session of the 144th General Assembly. The bill, which amends the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act, institutes strong provisions for manufactured home owners who wish to purchase their community. HB 504 guarantees homeowners, through a homeowners association or cooperative, a right of first offer. Community owners are required to give residents advance notice of their decision to sell, transfer or convey the land, regardless of whether it will result in a change of land use or not. It also requires that the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority, the homeowners association if one exists, and the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners Association be notified. The notice is accompanied by the price, any special conditions affecting the sale, and information on operating expenses and capital expenditure costs. A homeowners association then has 30 days to respond to the notice with its intent to accept or reject the offer or make a counteroffer. 29

An offer from the homeowners association is valid for 12 months, unless withdrawn, and in that time period, the community owner may not sell the community at or less than the price offered in the offer from the homeowners association. The community owner may accept a higher offer without any obligation to the homeowners association, unless the higher offer is within a certain percentage of the homeowners association offer. In this case, the homeowners association must be given seven business days to match the higher offer. The Act also includes model bylaws for homeowners associations, to serve as guidelines for what qualifies as a homeowners association. Efforts to Advance ROCs in Delaware Efforts to advance resident owned communities in Delaware have faced several challenges, the two broadest being 1) the lack of a guaranteed opportunity to be aware of the sale of a community before it happens and thus no opportunity for residents to purchase it directly; and 2) the lack of specialized and coordinated technical assistance for communities pursuing conversion. While these challenges are faced by many states, communities seeking conversion in Delaware have faced particular roadblocks. Many of the communities where homeowners feel the most risk and vulnerability to community closure or sale are in Sussex County’s beach resort areas. However, in these areas the exact conditions that put homeowners at higher risk may make conversion efforts particularly difficult. As ROC USATM notes on their website, homeowners can afford to compete with other potential buyers because “communities are ultimately bought and sold based upon cash flow – the monthly site rents that homeowners pay, plus any other income generated by that parcel of real estate and business operation. The cash flow can be the same for homeowner groups as for any competing buyer.” (http://www.rocusa.org) In some areas in the recent real estate boom, land prices were so high that the homeowners cannot compete with either the community owners’ desired price or the price developers planning a change of land use are willing to pay. In other cases, a community may be organized and wish to convert to resident ownership, but with an owner who is not interested in selling, or at least not to the homeowners. The passage of HB 504 granting residents a right of first offer to purchase their communities is a major leap forward in the effort to advance conversion to resident ownership in Delaware. Successes around the country demonstrate that statutes providing homeowners with the opportunity to purchase their homes – either through a first offer, matching offer, or right of first refusal – are critical to large‐scale successes. Without them, conversions can only be piecemeal at best and rely on a series of unlikely and unpredictable coincidences to succeed. Following close on the passage of HB 504, Delaware was also added by ROC USATM as a state where manufactured homeowners associations/cooperatives will be eligible to receive technical assistance to pursue conversion to cooperative ownership. Real Estate Advisory and Development Services, Inc. (READS), a technical assistance provider through ROC USATM, was approved in July 2008 to expand its service area to include Delaware. As of October 2008, DMHOA and READS were working with three communities up for sale, two in Kent County and one in New Castle County. Since the creation of the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund, there has been some interest in expanding the uses of the trust fund to include not only assistance to homeowners in communities where closure is imminent, but possibly also proactive assistance in the form of startup, feasibility or capital funding to homeowner associations seeking to convert to cooperative ownership. While this has not moved forward yet, it could be a useful tool in addressing the need for financing for conversions. 30

Dispute Resolution Authorized by Title 29, Section 2519(b) of the Delaware Code, the Delaware Council on Manufactured Housing is intended to advise the Division of Consumer Protection in the Attorney General's office on matters relating to manufactured home owners and tenants, manufactured housing and manufactured home communities. The Council is composed of 14 members including representatives of the manufactured housing industry and both renters and owners of manufactured homes from all three Counties, and is supported by staff from the Division of Consumer Protection. The Council also reviews grievances between manufactured home community owners and tenants or groups of tenants in accordance with the Delaware Manufactured Housing Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (25 Del.C. § 7001). The Act provides a means to resolve disputes about rules and regulations, leases, or alleged violation of manufactured housing laws without litigation by using alternative dispute resolution techniques. The Council, by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, determines that an existing dispute or grievance between a community owner and tenant or group of tenants should be referred to alternative dispute resolution. These efforts have been very successful and all cases referred to mediators to date have been resolved successfully. Lot Rent Assistance Program In 2005, community owners and the First State Manufactured Housing Association developed a voluntary lot rent assistance program to help very low‐income homeowners facing high lot rent costs. In 2006, this program was made mandatory for owners of communities of more than 25 lots through an amendment to the Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act. Homeowners are eligible for lot rent assistance when they meet the following criteria: 1) eligible for Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income benefits, or are 62 years of age or older; 2) have owned their home and/or resided in the home in the manufactured housing community prior to July 1, 2006; 3) reside full time and exclusively in the manufactured home in the manufactured home community, and it must be the homeowner’s only residence; 4) have liquid assets of less than $50,000; and 5) not be recipients of any other rental assistance funding. In addition, the homeowner/household’s income must be less than 40% of the Area Median Income for the county where the community is located, adjusted for household size. In 2008, for a family of four, this would mean an annual income of $23,480 in Kent County, $22,080 in Sussex County, and $28,840 in New Castle County. In addition, the lot rent, excluding utility charges and other charges, fees and assessments must exceed 30% of the income, adjusted for household size, based on 40% of the county’s median income. For a family of four in 2008, this would mean that lot rent must equal or exceed $587/month in Kent County, $552/month in Sussex County, and $721/month in New Castle County. The lot rent assistance provided is in the form of a credit for the amount that the lot rent exceeds 30% of the income for a household with income of 40% of the county median income, adjusted for household size. Eligibility must be recertified annually. To date, no state‐level summary statistics are being kept on the number of applicants and number of households participating in the lot rent program. However, it is expected that the number is fairly low, due to the strict eligibility requirements. On July 1, 2008, a bill was introduced in the General Assembly to expand the eligibility requirements for the program to households with incomes of less than 50% of Area 31

Median Income and increasing the liquid assets limit to $65,000. It was assigned to the House Subcommittee on Manufactured Housing. Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority The Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority (DMHRA) was established by the Delaware Legislature as part of the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act. The primary purposes of the Authority are to provide financial assistance to manufactured home owners who are tenants in a manufactured home community where the community owner changes the use of the land; and to provide financial assistance to manufactured home community owners for the removal and/or disposal of unrelocatable or abandoned manufactured homes when there is a change in use or a conversion. This is accomplished through the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund, which is funded by a special assessment of $3.00 per month per leased lot. Through the Trust Fund, homeowners can apply for reimbursement of costs to relocate a home (maximum reimbursement of $4,000 for a single‐section home or $8,000 for a multi‐section home), or abandonment, or for fair market value up to a cap set by DMHRA if the home is judged to be unmovable. Landlords can also be eligible for up to $4,000 for a single wide and $8,000 for a multi‐section home, to remove and dispose of homes abandoned by their owners or deemed to be unrelocatable. In just its first few years of existence, the trust fund has proved a valuable and necessary resource for many homeowners, assisting approximately 137 homeowners with $497,057 in relocation assistance since its creation in April 2004 through September 2008. The enabling legislation for the Fund and Authority limits reimbursement to homeowners whose homes cannot be moved to a cap to be set by the Board of DMHRA. The Board has worked to establish these caps for non‐relocatable homes but has not been successful in approving any proposed caps with a ¾ majority. A continuing concern is that without a cap and at the current monthly assessment rate of only $3 per leased lot, the Fund has very high exposure to be liable for large reimbursements to homeowners of non‐relocatable homes. Community closures resulting in a large number of claims for high‐value non‐ relocatable homes could conceivably threaten the Fund’s solvency. Enforcement also remains a challenge for the DMHRA. At its inception, there was little compiled information about manufactured housing communities in Delaware. Information was fragmented among various county and state offices. Simply assembling a comprehensive and current list of all active communities in Delaware, their owners, location and size in order to make sure all are paying into the Trust Fund as required has been a difficult task. Other aspects of enforcement exist on the opposite end, as claims are made and reimbursements issued: ensuring that homes are moved or disposed of as planned and communities filing change of land use actually are closed. In 2006, SB 388 created civil penalties, including repayment of all assistance provided from the Trust Fund, for owners of communities who claim a change of land use and either 1) fail to pursue changing the subdivision plan or zoning designation or 2) reuse the land for manufactured home or other dwelling lot rentals, as has been the case in at least one community where a change of land use was claimed. In 2008, DMHRA is expanding its staff to include a Code Enforcement Officer. SUMMARY – MANUFACTURED HOUSING TENURE ISSUES IN DELAWARE • The 2003 Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act, a major update of the existing Mobile Home Lots and Leases Act, and subsequent additions have made several positive steps forward, including: 32

o Creation of the Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund, with an associated dedicated revenue source, to provide relocation assistance to homeowners in communities closing due to change of land use; o A lot rent assistance program for homeowners who are eligible for Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income or who are over 62 years old and meet other eligibility requirements; o Creation of a process for resolution of disputes between homeowners and community owners via the Governor’s Advisory Council on Manufactured Housing and outside mediators; and o Establishment of a right for manufactured homeowners, as an association or cooperative, to make and match offers for the purchase of their community. • While the 2003 legislative update and other initiatives in recent years have improved conditions for homeowners, as homeowners on leased land over which they have no control, they remain essentially vulnerable, particularly to community closure, but also to sale of the community and lot rent increases. • Efforts to advance resident ownership of manufactured housing communities in Delaware have not been highly successful to date. However, the combination of the following has created a much more favorable environment for conversions: o The passage of an amendment to the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act (HB 504) giving manufactured homeowners the right to make a first offer on their community when the owner is interested in selling; o The availability of technical assistance and financing through a ROC USATM Certified Technical Assistance Provider, READS NJ; and o The real estate slowdown and subsequent drop in real estate values and development pressures, especially in Sussex County. 33

CONCLUSION The importance and permanence of manufactured homes as a source of affordable housing in the United States has long been underestimated and plagued by unfamiliarity, negative stereotypes, and often outright dismissal. But for decades, manufactured housing has played a major role in housing millions of Americans. In many areas it has been a driving force in the expansion of homeownership among low‐ income families. Examples and groundbreaking work at the national and local level demonstrate that there are sector‐wide solutions to some of the sector‐wide challenges that ultimately have great impact on manufactured homeowners’ housing security and ability to build wealth through their home. Delaware has a large stock of manufactured homes, a high percentage of homes in land‐lease communities, and many homes near resort areas. Measures to protect manufactured homeowners in Delaware are critical. Fortunately, there have been many positive steps, including comprehensive revision of the landlord/tenant code for manufactured housing; the development of the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund; and recent passage of amendments to the Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act requiring that homeowners be notified of planned sale of their community and have the opportunity to pursue purchase and conversion to resident ownership. Another area for continued effort in Delaware is the coordination of governmental responsibility and resources related to manufactured housing. Responsibility for manufactured housing issues in Delaware is fractured among many different entities and levels of government. Current and future manufactured homeowners would benefit from efforts to improve coordination between the various levels of government, agencies and entities responsible for different aspects of manufactured housing. 34

35

36

37

38

Government Resources for Homeowners U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/mhs/mhshome.cfm HUD has agreements with 38 state governments to conduct checks of plant records and respond to consumer complaints related to manufacturing, performance, quality and construction issues. The state government designates a State Administrative Agency. HUD staff carry out these functions in the other 12 states without SAAs, including Delaware. Contact for complaints: Office of Manufactured Housing Programs Phone: 1‐800‐927‐2891 Office of Regulatory Affairs & Manufactured Housing Fax: (202) 708‐4213 Department of Housing and Urban Development mhs@hud.gov 451 7th St. SW, Room 9164 Washington, DC 20410‐8000 Delaware Office of the Attorney General ‐ Consumer Protection Unit http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/consumers/protection/manuhousing.shtml The Consumer Protection Unit is responsible for the enforcement of the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act, as well as Delaware’s general landlord/tenant code. Homeowners with questions about their rights can contact the Consumer Protection Unit. Summaries of the law and information about Alternative Dispute Resolution are available on the Unit’s website. Carvel State Office Building New Castle County: 302‐577‐8600 820 N. French St Kent and Sussex Counties: 1‐800‐220‐5424 Wilmington, DE 19801 consumerprotection@state.de.us Delaware Manufactured Housing Relocation Authority http://www.demhra.delaware.gov/index.shtml The Delaware Manufactured Housing Relocation Authority provides relocation assistance to manufactured homeowners in communities that are closing. This can take the form of assistance with costs to move a home, or compensation if the home cannot be moved and must be abandoned. Assistance is also available to community owners to help with costs to dispose of abandoned homes. Application forms are available on the Authority’s website. PO Box 370 Phone: (302) 674‐7768 Camden, DE 19934 demhra@verizon.net Delaware Board of Manufactured Home Installation http://www.dpr.delaware.gov/boards/manufactoredhomes/index.shtml The Board of Manufactured Home Installation licenses manufactured home installers and certifies inspectors. The Board has the authority to discipline licensees. Detailed instructions to file a complaint about a licensed installer or to report unlicensed activity are on the Board’s website. Cannon Building, Suite 203 Phone: (302) 744‐4500 861 Silver Lake Blvd. Fax: (302) 739‐2711 Dover, DE 19904 customerservice.dpr@state.de.us 39

Resources Delaware Manufactured Home Owners Association (DMHOA) http://www.dmhoa.org The Delaware Manufactured Home Owners Association is Delaware’s statewide membership and advocacy organization for owners of manufactured homes on leased land. DMHOA members, including homeowner associations in about 60 communities, are active in many groups and initiatives around manufactured housing in Delaware and are active advocates for homeowners’ interests in the state legislature. 4590 Highway One PMB 112 Phone: (302) 945‐2122 Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971 First State Manufactured Housing Association (FSMHA) http://www.firststatemha.org First State Manufactured Housing Association is an association of businesses in the manufactured housing industry in Delaware, including community owners, retailers, manufacturers, lenders, insurers, and others. FSMHA staff and members are active in many various groups and initiatives around manufactured housing in Delaware. 2 N. State St. Phone: (302) 674‐5868 PO Box 1829 Fax: (302) 674‐5960 Dover, DE 19903‐1829 info@firststatemha.org ROC USATM http://www.rocusa.org ROC USATM is a national organization working with local technical assistance providers to provide pre‐ and post‐purchase training and technical assistance to manufactured homeowner groups to buy and sustain their communities. In Delaware, these services are available through New Jersey‐based Real Estate Advisory and Development Services (READS). 7 Wall Street Phone: (603) 856‐0246 Concord, NH 03301 Fax: (603) 225‐7425 info@rocusa.org Real Estate Advisory and Development Services (READS) http://www.readsnj.com READS is a nonprofit real estate development and consulting firm with a focus on community and economic development. A Certified Technical Assistance Provider (CTAP) through ROC USATM, READS can deliver pre‐ and post‐purchase technical assistance, including help in securing financing, to manufactured homeowner groups seeking to purchase their communities in Delaware and New Jersey. 280 Amboy Ave., 3rd Floor Phone: (732) 635‐1000 Metuchen, NJ 08840 Fax: (732) 635‐2000 40

SOURCES Apgar, W., Calder, A., Collins, M. & Duda, M. (2002). An Examination of Manufactured Housing as a Community‐ and Asset‐Building Strategy. Report to the Ford Foundation by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation in collaboration with the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/communitydevelopment/W02‐ 11_apgar_et_al.pdf Bradley, P. (2003). “No Longer A Secret: The Manufactured Housing Sector Can Create Long‐term Value for Homeowners.” Rural Voices 8:2. Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council. Carter, C., Williamson, O., DeArmond, E., & Sheldon, J. (2004). Manufactured Housing Community Tenants: Shifting the Balance of Power. Washington, DC: National Consumer Law Center and Public Policy Institute. Consumers Union Southwest Regional Office and the Austin Tenants’ Council (2000). Access to the Dream: Subprime and Prime Mortgage Lending in Texas. http://www.consumersunion.org/finance/access/access7.htm Consumers Union Southwest Regional Office. 2003. In Over Our Heads: Consumers Report Predatory Lending and Fraud in Manufactured Housing. http://www.consumersunion.org/other/mh/overinfo.htm Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles. http://www.dmv.de.gov/services/vehicle_services/vehicle_svcs.shtml Delaware Office of the Attorney General: Consumer Protection Unit (2005). Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act: Summary. http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/media/pdf/manuhoussumm.pdf Fannie Mae, MH SelectTM Initiative. https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/relatedsellinginfo/manufachousing/ Federal Housing Administration. Manufactured Housing Programs. http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page?_pageid=33,716858&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Foremost Insurance Group (2005). Manufactured Homes: The Market Facts 2005. Caledonia, MI: The Foremost Group. http://cp.foremost.com/marketfacts2005/index.htm Genz, R. (2001). “Why Advocates Need to Rethink Manufactured Housing.” Housing Policy Debate. 12:2. George, L. and Barr, M. (2005). Moving Home: Manufactured Housing in Rural America. Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council. http://www.ruralhome.org/pressreleasesview.php?id=174 Jewell, K. (2003). Manufactured Housing Appreciation: Stereotypes and Data. Austin, TX: Consumers Union Southwest Regional Office. Kochera, A. (2003). “Manufactured Housing Can Serve Older Persons.” Rural Voices 8:2. Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council. 41

Manufactured Housing Institute (2008). QuickFacts: Trends and Information about the Manufactured Housing Industry. Washington, DC: Manufactured Housing Institute. Manufactured Housing Institute (2008). Summary of Key Provisions in H.R. 3221, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. http://www.manufacturedhousing.org/lib/showtemp_detail.asp?id=672&cat=whats_hot U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs. http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/mhs/mhshome.cfm U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and National Association of Homebuilders (2000). Home Builders’ Guide to Manufactured Housing. http://www.huduser.org:80/publications/destech/homeguide.html U.S. Government Accountability Office (2007). Federal Housing Administration: Agency Should Assess the Proposed Changes to the Manufactured Home Loan Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07879.pdf Ward, S., French, C., & Giraud, K. (2006). Building Value and Security for Homeowners in “Mobile Home Parks:” A Report on Economic Outcomes. Concord, NH: Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. http://www.rocusa.org/3B1_carsey_report_3C7A.pdf West, S. (2006). “Manufactured Housing Finance and the Secondary Market.” Community Development Investment Review. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. June 2006, pp 35‐47. 42

DELAWARE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY 18 The Green Dover, DE 19901 http://www.destatehousing.com (302) 739‐4263 Document Control Number 10‐08‐01‐08‐11‐01

Chapter 66 - MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TRAILERS Sec. 66-1. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Mobile home means a single-family dwelling designed for transportation, after fabrication, on streets and highways on its own wheels or on flatbeds or other trailers, and arriving at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling, complete and ready for occupancy, except for minor and incidental unpacking and assembly operations, location of jacks or foundations, connections to utilities and the like. The term "mobile home" shall not include a single-family dwelling which is designed to be placed on a permanent foundation, is not designed to be readily movable after the original occupancy as a single-family dwelling, and conforms to the city's building, plumbing, electrical and housing codes. Permanently placed mobile home means a single-family dwelling designed for transportation, after fabrication, on streets and highways on its own wheels or on flatbeds or other trailers, and arriving at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling, complete and ready for occupancy, except for placement upon a permanent, unmovable foundation, removal of all wheels and axles, and other minor incidental operations, such as unpacking, connections or utilities and the like. The term "permanently placed mobile home" shall be construed as being synonymous with that of the term "single-family dwelling," a dwelling which is designed to be placed on a permanent foundation, is not designed to be readily movable after the original occupancy as a single-family dwelling, and conforms to the city's building, plumbing, electrical and housing codes, except for the purpose of zoning in which it shall be considered a mobile home. Owner of a mobile home means the person designated in the title of the mobile home, whether the title is issued by this state or by some other state. Owner of a permanently placed mobile home means the person designated in the title of the mobile home, whether the title is issued by this state or by some other state, and such person must also be the owner of the lot upon which the mobile home is permanently affixed. The term "lot" shall mean a parcel of land that conforms to the multiple ownership provisions of the laws of the state dealing with unit properties and condominiums, and must be located within a mobile home park. (Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 2; Code 1981, § 12-1; Ord. of 11-10-1986, § 1) Sec. 66-2. - License. (a) Required fee. The owner of a mobile home shall obtain an annual license for it and shall pay a fee for such license as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. (b) Payment; penalties. Such license shall be obtained and the license fee paid by July 1 of each year and if such fee is not paid before August 1 of such year, then, in addition to any penalty incurred pursuant to Appendix F—Fees and Fines, a penalty fee of ten percent per month shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the license fee. (c) Moving into city. Upon the moving of a mobile home into the city, such license shall be obtained and the license fee paid within seven days. Payment of such license fee shall be prorated on a quarterly basis for each fractional part of a year during which the mobile home is in the city. (d) Sticker; where placed. Once the annual license fee has been paid by the owner of a mobile home, he shall be issued a sticker or other evidence of payment by the city manager or his authorized agent. This sticker or other evidence of payment must be placed upon the mobile home on the front of the mobile home facing the street on the righthand side when facing said mobile home one foot up from the bottom of the skirting and one foot over from the side of the mobile home. Page 1

(Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 2; Ord. of 5-24-1976; Ord. of 3-27-1980; Code 1981, § 12-2; Ord. of 8-8- 1988; Ord. of 3-22-1993; Ord. No. 2009-09, 6-22-2009) Sec. 66-3. - Real property taxes. A permanently placed mobile home as defined in section 66-1, and the lot upon which it is located shall be considered as being real property for purposes of valuation, assessment and taxation in accordance with section 47 of the Charter, but shall be considered a mobile home as defined in section 66-1 for purposes of zoning and shall only be permitted to be located in the mobile home park zone (MPH), as spelled out in appendix B to this Code (article 3, section 8). This section shall not apply to permanently placed mobile homes that were in place on January 1, 1985, which shall continue to be licensed in accordance with section 66-2. (Code 1981, § 12-2.1; Ord. of 11-10-1986, § 2) Sec. 66-4. - Placement permit. Every owner of a mobile home, before moving the same into the city, shall apply for and obtain from the city manager or his authorized agent a placement permit for such mobile home. The city manager or his authorized agent shall issue no placement permit until the license fee required in this chapter is paid in full. (Ord. of 2-23-1970, §§ 3, 6; Ord. of 5-24-1976; Code 1981, § 12-3) Sec. 66-5. - Duties of mobile home park operators. (a) Documents to mobile home owners. Copies of this chapter and placement permit application forms shall be furnished to each mobile home park operator, who shall give a copy of the same to every mobile home owner who moves a mobile home into his park, before the 15th day of the next succeeding month after placement of the mobile home. (b) Lease record; report. Mobile home park operators who lease land to two or more persons for parking mobile homes shall maintain a lease record, which shall be open for inspection at all reasonable times by the city manager. Before June 1 of each year, the mobile home park operator shall report to the city manager the names and addresses of all persons having mobile homes on his land. (Ord. of 2-23-1970, §§ 4, 5, 7; Code 1981, § 12-4) Sec. 66-6. - Anchoring and skirting. Within 30 days after occupancy of all mobile homes, the mobile homes shall be firmly anchored to the ground and the open space beneath the unit shall be skirted with approved material in accordance with the requirements of the building inspector. (Ord. of 9-13-1976; Code 1981, § 12-5) Sec. 66-7. - Use of city utilities. The owner or occupant of any mobile home shall not be entitled to receive city utilities until the license fee required in this chapter is paid in full, and city personnel shall refuse to provide sewage, water and electricity to the mobile home until satisfactory proof is furnished that such license fee has been paid. Page 2

(Ord. of 7-28-1975; Code 1981, § 12-6) Sec. 66-8. - Exemptions. This chapter shall not apply to: (1) Dealers. Unoccupied mobile homes located on a dealer's display lot; or (2) State license tag. Mobile homes bearing a current license tag of this state. (Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 8; Code 1981, § 12-7) Page 3

Section 1. - One-family residence zones [(R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8 and R-7)]. (R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, R-7.) (See also article 5, Supplementary Regulations; and article 6, Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities.) 1.1 Uses permitted. In a one-family residence R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8 and R-7 zones, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any uses except the following: 1.11 The raising of field and garden crops, vineyards and orchard farming, the maintenance of nurseries, and the seasonal sale of the products thereof, provided no building is erected and signs conform with article 5, section 4. 1.12 One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one such dwelling per lot. 1.13 Public buildings, structures and uses, including parks and playgrounds, subject to approval of site plans by the planning commission in accordance with article 10, section 2. 1.14 The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in section 10.1 and to any specified requirements set forth below: (a) Places of worship, including parish houses; [and] schools, including nursery schools, kindergartens and day care centers in accordance with article 5, Supplementary Regulations, section 14. Day care facilities; philanthropic and eleemosynary institutions; hospitals and sanitariums for general medical care; and funeral homes subject to the following requirements: i. Any school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)] shall be a nonprofit organization within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Act and shall be registered effectively as such thereunder. ii. Any school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)], other than a kindergarten, nursery school, or day care center, shall occupy a lot with an area of not less than two acres, plus one acre for each 100 pupils for which the building is designed. iii. Any kindergarten or nursery school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)] shall be limited to a maximum of 50 children in zones R-8 thru R-20 and a maximum of 100 children in all other zones. At least 100 square feet of outdoor play space per child shall be provided. Outdoor play space shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed on all sides and shall not include driveways, parking areas, or land unsuited by other usage or natural features for children's active play space. Fencing or other enclosures shall be a minimum height of four feet. The minimum lot area for each ten, or remainder over the multiple of ten, children shall be the same as the minimum lot area requirement for each dwelling unit in the districts in which such uses are to be located. iv. No such building or part thereof shall be erected with less than a 50-foot front yard or nearer than 25 feet from any other street or property line. v. The sum of all areas covered by all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed 20 percent of the area of the lot. vi. Courts shall conform to the requirements of article 5, section 3 hereof. (b) Railroad and public utility rights-of-way and structures necessary to serve areas within the city, subject to such conditions as the planning commission may impose in order to protect and promote the health and safety and general welfare of the community Page 1

and the character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to be constructed. (c) Country clubs or other annual membership clubs, catering exclusively to members and their guests, and accessory private playgrounds, golf courses, swimming pools, tennis courts and recreation buildings not conducted as business enterprises, provided that the following operations shall be prohibited: i. Outdoor entertainment, live or mechanical; ii. The use of outdoor public address systems for any purpose; and iii. Exterior lighting producing glare at the lot line other than that essential for the safety of the users of the premises. No building erected under the provisions of this paragraph [subsection 1.14(c)] shall be so erected nearer than 50 feet to any street or property line. 1.15 Accessory uses, limited to the following: (a) Professional office or studio of an artist, dentist, musician, teacher, or physician, but not including veterinarians, provided that: i. Such office or studio is incidental to the residential use of the premises and is carried on by a resident thereon with not more than one nonresident assistant; and ii. Such office or studio shall occupy not more than 30 percent of the area of one floor of the main building. iii. Studios where dancing or music instruction is offered to groups in excess of four pupils at one time or where concerts or recitals are held are prohibited. iv. Medical centers, barbershops, beauty parlors, real estate offices, funeral homes or similar uses shall not be considered permitted accessory uses. (b) Garden house, tool house, playhouse, greenhouse or pool incidental to the residential use of the premises and not operated for gain. (c) Private garage, provided that, in the case of a one-family dwelling, such garage shall have a capacity of not more than three passenger automobiles. One such space may be leased to a person not [a] resident on the premises. (d) Keeping domestic animals (except pigs) for individual domestic purposes or as pets, provided not more than three dogs over six months old and not more than 25 fowl shall be permitted, and no animals (except dogs) or fowl shall be penned or housed within 20 feet of any lot line. (e) (Reserved.) (f) Dormitories accessory to schools, provided that such dormitories conform to the bulk regulations of the RG-1 zone. For purposes of computing bulk requirements, each four rooms shall be considered one dwelling unit. Parking shall be calculated as identified in Article 6—Off-Street Parking, Section 3—Required off-street parking spaces, Paragraph 3.1—Schedule of requirements. (g) Customary home occupations, provided that: i. No display of products, goods and/or signs shall be visible from the street. ii. Such home occupation shall be incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises and shall be conducted in the principal building by the resident or residents that reside therein. iii. Nonresident assistants or co-workers shall be prohibited. Page 2

iv. Such home occupation shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the area of one floor in the principal building. v. There shall be no exterior effect such as noise, traffic, odor, dust, smoke, gas, fumes, radiation, or electromagnetic interference. 1.16 [1.2] Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and related accessory structures. Such approval shall also be required prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a change of use. 1.17 [1.3] Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 1.18 [1.4] [Closed zone.] Zone R-7 is a closed zone in accordance with article 10, section 5.19. 1.19 [1.5] [Signs.] Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign regulations. (Ord. of 1-8-1979; Ord. of 5-14-1990; Ord. of 12-14-1992(2); Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12- 2001; Ord. No. 2009-12, 9-14-2009; Ord. No. 2011-21, 10-10-2011) Page 3

ARTICLE 12. - DEFINITIONS [Note: only definitions relevant to one-family dwellings and mobile homes are included] Unless otherwise expressly stated, the following terms shall, for the purpose of this ordinance, have the following meanings. Words used in the present tense include the future. The singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular. The word "person" includes a corporation, association or partnership, as well as an individual. The word "lot" includes the word "plot." The term "occupied" or "used," as applied to any building, shall be construed as though followed by the words "or intended, arranged or designed to be occupied or used": Dwelling, detached: A dwelling having no walls in common with other dwellings or with nonresidential uses. Dwelling, one-family: A dwelling unit designed and intended for use by only one family. Dwelling unit: A building or entirely self-contained portion thereof containing complete housekeeping facilities for only one family, including any domestic servants employed on the premises, and having no enclosed space (other than vestibules, entrance or other hallways or porches) or cooking or sanitary facilities in common with any other dwelling unit. A boarding[house] or roominghouse, convalescent home, dormitory, fraternity or sorority house, hotel, inn, lodging, nursing, or other similar home, house trailer, or other similar structures or vehicles shall not be deemed to constitute a dwelling unit. Mobile home: A single-family dwelling designed for transportation, after fabrication, on streets, and highways on its own wheels or on flatbed or other trailers, and arriving at a site in a mobile home park where it is to be occupied as a dwelling, complete and ready for occupancy, except for minor and incidental unpacking and assembly operations, location on jacks or permanent foundations, connections to utilities, and the like; excluding, however, the single-family dwelling which is designed to be readily moveable after the original occupancy as a single-family dwelling, and conforms to the building code, plumbing code, electrical code and housing code of the City of Dover. Single-wide mobile homes are those units built as a complete home measuring up to 14 feet in width and finished on all exterior sides prior to transportation to a site for installation. Double-wide mobile homes are those units built in two halves intended to be assembled together on the site at the time of installation, each half measuring up to 14 feet in width and each finished on three exterior sides. (Ord. of 7-23-1979; Ord. of 3-24-1986; Ord. of 6-12-1989; Ord. of 5-14-1990; Ord. of 12-14- 1992(2); Ord. of 7-12-1993, §§ 5, 12—14; Ord. of 7-26-1993; Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 9-13- 1999; Ord. of 5-22-2000; Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12-2001; Ord. of 1-13-2003; Ord. of 4- 23-2007(5); Ord. No. 2010-25, 11-8-2010; Ord. No. 2011-01, 4-11-2011; Ord. No. 2014-08, 7-14- 2014) Page 1

31 20 915 1016 870 25 18 1008 901 907 1006 860 1002 865 d lan 17 Up 922 827 821 851 920 18 811 908 nh 808 ee 805 io n 900 Gr ivis D 835 801 ill 840 731 838 834 797 796 823 818 781 727 817 812 826 775 790 802 767 801 740 786 730 759 797 816 778 751 726 745 774 791 810 714 737 ey 766 als 787 H 802 727 756 783 736 798 721 732 777 711 790 17 728 761 an 724 rm 780 23 751 cke o 720 Lo 772 718 745 712 731 760 41 756 721 45 711 748 49 42 738 gehil 44 Ed l 705 728 720 Approximately 1,000 feet 706 211 Jo H P&I #2 Exhibit Map hn V-16-15 823 East Loockerman Appeal Distance Between Appellant and Subject Property un n 223 Brow 101 Ü n Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the 148 GIS user community, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar 241 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, 225 AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS 101 Feet 0 37.5 75 150 300 User Community

Exhibit—P&I#3 View from E. Loockerman Street View looking east on E. Loockerman Street