Moundsville's Manufactured Home Debate: Single-Wides Under Scrutiny Amid Housing Crisis

Photo byemma delk

MOUNDSVILLE — A recent policy subcommittee meeting has sparked a significant debate within the Moundsville City Council over the fate of single-wide manufactured homes in the city. A majority of council members expressed opposition to allowing these homes beyond the designated mobile park, reflecting deep divisions in the city's approach to addressing its housing needs.

The controversy ignited when two single-wide manufactured homes, typically ranging from 500 to 1,300 square feet—similar in size to trailers—were mistakenly approved and placed on Poplar Avenue. The mistake highlighted inconsistencies in the city's housing approval process, forcing council members to confront the larger issue: should single-wide manufactured homes be permitted outside Moundsville’s Mobile Home Park?

During the subcommittee meeting, City Attorney Thomas White categorized manufactured homes into two distinct groups. “Type one” homes, he explained, are built on-site, anchored to foundations, and designed to resemble traditional houses. In contrast, “type two” homes are trailers transported on wheels and not permitted outside the Moundsville Mobile Home Park.

White noted that the city’s current ordinance bans both single-wide and double-wide manufactured homes within city limits. However, the council must decide whether to allow one or both types moving forward. As the council navigates this dilemma, the voices of residents and council members highlight the deeper struggle between preserving community aesthetics and addressing urgent housing needs.

Council member Brianna Hickman emphasized the city's housing crisis, expressing discomfort with limiting single-wide homes based on aesthetics. “A home is a home, and we need to make sure they’re similar structures in their zone,” she stated, stressing the need for flexibility in providing affordable housing solutions.

However, opposition remains strong. Vice Mayor David Wood raised concerns about the potential impact on established neighborhoods. “Do our neighbors on Fifth Street, Sixth Street, Virginia, and Cherokee want a trailer next to their house?” he asked, highlighting the preference of some residents to maintain the visual consistency of their communities.

Council member Patrick Healy echoed these sentiments, warning that allowing single-wides could disrupt neighborhoods predominantly occupied by homeowners. “Residents would be really upset if we were to open up single-wides for use citywide,” he cautioned.

Not all council members agreed with the restrictive stance. Council member Ginger DeWitt countered by pointing out that several areas cited as examples also contain dilapidated houses—what she described as a “bigger eyesore” than a single-wide trailer. “If people can afford an empty lot and a single-wide as a starter home, that’s progress,” DeWitt asserted, advocating for a broader perspective in revitalizing the city’s declining population.

The debate also touched on existing legal constraints. Council member Judy Hunt highlighted that deed restrictions in certain neighborhoods, such as Cherokee Hills, would prevent mobile homes even if city regulations were changed. Attorney White confirmed that these restrictions override city code, further complicating the path forward.

Council member Randy Chamberlain referred to the placement of the two single-wides on Poplar Avenue as “mistakes” and questioned whether single-wides align with the city’s vision for new housing. “I don’t believe this is the solution for encouraging housing growth,” he added.

Ultimately, the council conducted a straw poll to gauge support for an ordinance permitting double-wides but not single-wides outside the mobile park. The result was a 5-2 vote in favor, with DeWitt and Hickman dissenting. White stated that he would draft a revised ordinance to be reviewed at the upcoming city council meeting, outlining provisions for double-wide manufactured homes.

The debate underscores a broader question for Moundsville: How can the city balance the need for affordable housing with the desire to maintain neighborhood aesthetics and community integrity?