HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-08-2014 - 7cORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 8, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 7 -c
1
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related to
Home Occupations
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) NO
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO)
Amendment Outline Form
2. Proposed Ordinance
3. Proposed Amendment Summary
Spreadsheet
4. Home Occupations Report and Site
Plan Examples
5. Excerpt of Approved November 25,
2013 Quarterly Public Hearing
Minutes
6. Excerpt of Approved February 18,
2014 BOCC Meeting Minutes
7. Excerpt of Draft April 2, 2014 Planning
Board Meeting Minutes
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ashley Moncado, Planner II, (919) 245 -2589
Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245 -2575
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation and make a decision on a
Planning Board and Planning Director initiated text amendment to the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO).
As a reminder, the public hearing was closed at the February 18, 2014 BOCC meeting,
so no additional public comments can be accepted on this item.
BACKGROUND: At the January 9, 2013 Planning Board meeting, Board members
discussed areas of interest to be worked on in the coming year. Many of these items
were elements highlighted in the UDO Implementation Bridge report prepared when the
UDO was adopted in 2011. One item presented by the Planning Board and referenced
in the Implementation Bridge was the need to review home occupation requirements to
determine the need to revise existing standards. Since July 2013 staff has been
working directly with the Planning Board to review and revise existing home occupation
standards contained in the UDO.
The amendment was presented for adoption consideration at the February 18, 2014
BOCC meeting. During discussion Board members identified concerns with existing
and proposed language regarding screening and setback standards for accessory
structures utilized in a home occupation. Due to these concerns, the BOCC voted to
2
refer the item back to the Planning Board and staff for further review and consideration.
An excerpt of approved minutes from this meeting is included in Attachment 6.
Attachment 4 contains a staff report on the proposed text amendment's review history
and site plan examples depicting existing and proposed setback standards. Pages 5 -7
(see page numbers at the bottom of the page) include a response from Planning staff
addressing comments received at the February 18 BOCC meeting.
As the following graphic depicts:
The goal of the proposed amendment was to create a reasonable balance between
supporting home based businesses in the county and protecting the character and
enjoyment of residential neighborhoods.
_ .........
.------ - - - - -_ _-
Strive to create a reasonable balance between supporting home based businesses
and protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods
k [
f�
i
,
* Proposed uses exceeding home occupation regulations may apply for a,-.-`
`. conditional use permit or relocate to a commercial zoning district.
Additionally, the graphic contained on page 3 (see page numbers at the bottom of the
page) of Attachment 4 illustrates the number of existing and proposed options available
to accommodate and support businesses, including home occupations, in the rural and
urban areas of the county as a result of the proposed amendment.
Planning staff is proposing for these amendments to take effect July 1, 2014. This delay will
present an opportunity for staff to provide outreach to Orange County residents regarding
the reviewing and permitting of home occupations based on the revised and proposed
standards contained in Attachment 2.
3
Public Hearing
The proposed UDO amendment was heard and opened for public comment at the
November 25, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing. Agenda materials from the public hearing
can be viewed at http://www.orangecount\/nc.gov/occierks/131125e.pd . Additionally,
an excerpt of approved minutes from this meeting are provided in Attachment 5. No
members of the public spoke on the proposed UDO amendments and no substantive
questions were asked. As detailed in Section B.1 of Attachment 1, letters were mailed
to residents who currently have a home occupation permit in order to solicit feedback.
At the February 18 BOCC meeting, the Board voted unanimously to close the public
hearing, prior to referring the amendment back to the Planning Board and staff for
further review.
Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis regarding the amendment.
Proposed text amendment language can be found in Attachment 2 within a "track
changes" format (red text for proposed additions and black strikethreugI4 for proposed
deletions). Modifications made following the November Quarterly Public Hearing and
December 4 Planning Board meeting are denoted in underlined green text. Finally,
Attachment 3 contains a spreadsheet summarizing proposed revisions to Sections 2.22,
5.3.4, and 5.5.3.
Planning Director's Recommendation
The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed UDO amendments based
on the following:
i. The UDO amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted
2030 Comprehensive Plan.
ii. The proposed amendments achieve a reasonable balance between protecting
existing residential uses and allowing expanded (when compared to existing
regulations) home occupations in residential areas.
Planning Board Recommendation
The Planning Board considered this item at its April 2, 2014 meeting and voted 4 -2 to
recommend approval of the UDO text amendment. An excerpt of draft minutes from
this meeting is included in Attachment 7. Agenda materials from this meeting can be
viewed at
http: / /www orangecountync aov /planning/ documents /4.2.14PBPacketWeb.pdf.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Consideration and approval will not create the need for
additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs for the required legal
advertisement will be paid from FY2013 -14 Departmental funds budgeted for this
purpose. Existing planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will
accomplish the work required to process this amendment.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation; and
2. Approve the Ordinance contained in Attachment 2.
Attachment 1 4
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning- 2013 -03
Home Occupation Standards
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
❑ Land Use Element Map:
From:
To:
❑ Zoning Map:
From:
To:
❑ Other:
Text Amendments
❑ Comprehensive Plan Text:
!Section(s): j
® UDO Text:
❑UDO General Text Changes
®UDO Development Standards
®UDO Development Approval Processes
Sections) '1' . Section 2.22 Home Occupations
2. Section 5.4.3 Special Events
3. Section 5.5.3 Home Occupations
4. Section 10.1 Definitions
❑ OtherW
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose /Mission
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified
Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, the Planning Board and Planning
Director are proposing to initiate a text amendment to modify existing language
relating to the regulation of home occupations within the county.
1
5
At the January 9, 2013 Planning Board meeting, Board members discussed areas of
interest for planning staff to address for the next year. One item, which was
highlighted in the UDO Implementation Bridge report prepared when the UDO was
adopted in 2011, included the need to review existing home occupation standards for
a potential revision. At that time, Board members expressed concern with the
existing standards limiting home occupations by being too restrictive with the
required square footage allowances and number of permitted non - residential
employees. As a result, the Board requested staff to proceed with reviewing existing
standards. To address the Planning Board's request, staff presented information at
the July 10, 2013 Planning Board meeting, including a summary of current standards
contained in the UDO, a comparison with other local jurisdictions' standards, and
items of consideration to better facilitate and promote the use of home occupations.
Following review and discussion, the Board asked staff to proceed with an
amendment to the UDO addressing their comments and areas of interest relating to
the UDO Implementation Bridge report.
At the September 4 Planning Board meeting, staff presented draft language based !;
on Planning Board comments received at the July meeting for review. Additionally, at
this time, staff presented Section 419, Live /Work Units, from the 2012 North Carolina
Building Code regarding the review and permitting of home occupations that are !;
classified as live /work units. Although planning staff considers this Section of the
building code, adopted in 2012, to be restrictive, local governments cannot amend
laws, codes and /or rules adopted by the State. Staff anticipates that this Section of
the building code will result in prospective home occupation applicants deciding to
locate their home occupation in an accessory structure if the home occupation
comprises of more than ten percent of their home's square footage. A copy of
Section 419 is included at the end of this form.
At the October 2 Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meeting staff presented
proposed amendment language for Board comment. Following this meeting, planning
staff identified concerns with the proposed recommendations and requested a
meeting with the Planning Board Chair and Vice Chair to discuss and review the
Board's recommendation. The Planning Board Vice Chair was unable to attend, but
did provide comments regarding proposed recommendations to staff and the
Planning Board Chair. At the October 16 meeting with Chair Hallenbeck proposed
standards based on Planning Board's recommendation were revised in order to
create a reasonable balance between supporting home based businesses in the
county and protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods.
Revised recommendations were presented at the November 6 ORC meeting. During
this meeting, members stated concern with existing standards prohibiting specific
uses from receiving a home occupation permit [See UDO Section 5.5.3(2)(a)(iii)], !!
however, no specific amendment requests were made.
2
C
At the November 25 Quarterly Public Hearing concerns with standards regarding
prohibiting specific uses, screening of accessory structures, and setback standards
of accessory structures and outdoor storage space utilized in a major home
occupation were discussed by the BOCC and Planning Board. Recognizing that a
number of items needed to be reviewed and discussed among the Planning Board,
staff recommended bringing the item back to the Planning Board for further review
and discussion at the December 4 meeting. At the Quarterly Public Hearing a BOCC
member suggested staff send a letter to residents who currently have a home
occupation permit in order to solicit feedback. Sixty -three letters were mailed on
November 27, 2013 and no comments were received from the public. At the January
8 Planning Board meeting, Board members reviewed revised standards based on
comments received at the November Quarterly Public Hearing and the December 4
Planning Board meeting. Members voted 7 -1 to recommend approval of the UDO
text amendment as presented by staff.
The amendment was presented for adoption consideration at the February 18
BOCC. During the meeting, Board members identified concerns with existing and
proposed standards regarding screening and setback regulations for accessory
structures utilized in a home occupation. As a result, the BOCC referred the item
back to the Planning Board and staff for further review and consideration. At the
April 2 Planning Board meeting, planning staff presented and reviewed comments
received from the February 18 BOCC meeting for Planning Board consideration and
discussion. Following staff's presentation, the Board identified concerns previously
discussed with existing and proposed home occupation standards regarding
enforcement, land uses not permitted (automotive repair, service, and detailing),,
permitted number of daily visitors, and permit fees. Board members voted 4 -2 to
recommend approval of the UDO text amendment as presented by staff.
2. Analysis
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
`cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis,
prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of
County Commissioners'.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to develop standards that accommodate
and encourage the use of home occupations while protecting the residential
!' character of neighborhoods and meeting standards of the North Carolina Building
Code in order to incorporate recommendations of the Implementation Bridge into the
Unified Development Ordinance. Proposed standards will allow for smaller and larger
scale home occupations with the development of two categories including a minor
home occupation and a major home occupation. Uses such as artist studios often are
considered home occupations and the updated standards will apply to artist studios.
3
This is a topic that was raised at the February 2013 BOCC retreat and the May 14,
2013 BOCC work session when "Agricultural Support Enterprises" was discussed.
Additional amendments to Section 5.4.3 Special Events will address reviewing and
permitting events conducted by the home occupation. Specifically, allowing nonprofit
or government organized events, including the Orange County Open Studio Tour, to
be exempt from the existing special event and Class B Special Use Permit process in
order to support and accommodate these events within the county. Also, see Section
D of this Form.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Economic Development Overarching Goal: Viable and sustainable economic
development that contributes to both property and sales tax revenues, and enhances
high quality employment opportunities for County residents.
Economic Development Objective 1.5: Identify barriers to development of
desirable businesses and local businesses, and mitigate these barriers.
4. New Statutes and Rules
N/A
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME /MILESTONES /DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
September 5, 2013
b. Quarterly Public Hearing
i November 25, 2013
c. BOCC Updates /Checkpoints
November 5, 2013 — Approved legal ad for the November 25 Quarterly Public
Hearing.
November 6, 2013 — Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)
November 25, 2013 — Quarterly Public Hearing
— Comments made at the Quarterly Public Hearing are included at the end of
this form.
February 18, 2014 — Receive Planning Board recommendation
May 8, 2014 — Receive Planning Board recommendation
d. Other
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission /Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements.
4
7
9:3
a. Planning Board Review:
July 10, 2013 — discussion of topic
September 4, 2013 — further discussion
October 2, 2013 — Ordinance Review Committee
November 6, 2013 — Ordinance Review Committee
December 4, 2013 — further discussion
January 8, 2014 — BOCC recommendation
April 2, 2014 — BOCC recommendation
b. Advisory Boards:
c. Local Government Review:
The proposed text amendments were received from the Town of Carrboro
submitted to the JPA Partners on and the Town of Chapel Hill are
November 7, 2013. Comments included at the end of this form.
d. Notice Requirements
Consistent with NC State Statutes — legal ad prior to public hearing
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the
provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid
from FY2013 -14 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing Planning
staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required
to process this amendment.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
Proposed amendments to existing home occupation standards include two types of
home occupations. The first type, minor home occupations, follows the existing review
process in place for home occupations with revisions allowing for an increase in square
footage and number of employees in all residential districts. The second type, major
home occupations, is proposed in order to accommodate larger scale accessory
business uses in the AR (Agricultural Residential) and R -1 (Rural Residential) zoning
districts. A Class B Special Use Permit will be required for major home occupations.
The number of employees and permitted amount of square footage utilized in a major
home occupation shall be determined with the approved special use permit.
Additional minor revisions to existing standards will address traffic generation, accessory
._ .. .. .... ......._._ .......
5
structures, outdoor storage space, vehicle weight restrictions, and landscaping for all
home occupations. Proposed amendments will introduce standards addressing the total
number of students, customers, and /or clients permitted per day and address the review
of special events for home occupations. Finally, definitions referencing minor home
occupations and major home occupations are proposed within Article 10. The Planning
Board and staff have endeavored to be mindful of any adverse impacts that may occur
in the various types of residential districts found in the county while creating the
amendment package.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
See Attachment 2 for proposed language.
Primary Staff Contact:
Ashley Moncado
Planning Department
919- 245 -2589
amoncado @orangecountync.gov
6
M
10
SPECIAL DETAILED REQUIREMENTS BASED ON USE AND OCCUPANCY
with 1/4 'nch (6.35 mm) insulating mill board or other roved 3. The nonresidential area function shall be limited to
equivale t insulation. / the first or main floor only of the live /work unit; and
[F] 417. Fire protection. Drying rooms de i ned for
high -hazar materials and processes, including s ecial occu-
pancies asp vided for in Chapter 4, shall be p tected by an
approved autd4patic fire - extinguishing system mplying with
the provisions Chapter 9.
SECTION 418
O GANIC COATIN S
[F] 418.1 Building fe tures. Manufa uring of organic coat-
ings shall be done onl in buildings hat do not have pits or
basements.
[F] 418.2 Location. Org is co ting manufacturing opera-
tions and operations inciden Al t or connected therewith shall
not be located in buildings ha ' g other occupancies.
[F] 418.3 Process mills. Mill erating with close clearances
and that process flammable nd eat - sensitive materials, such
as nitrocellulose, shall be ocate in a detached building or
noncombustible structure
[F] 418.4 Tank storage Storage area for flammable and com-
bustible liquid tanks i ide of structur s shall be located at or
above grade and shal a separated from he processing area by
not less than 2 -hot fire barriers cons t cted in accordance
with Section 707 or horizontal assemb 'es constructed in
accordance with ection 712, or both.
4. A maximum of five nonresidential workers or
employees are allowed to occupy the nonresidential
area at any one time.
419.2 Occupancies. Live /work units shall be classified as a
Group R -2 occupancy. Separation requirements found in Sec-
tions 420 and 508 shall not apply within the live /work unit
when the live /work unit is in compliance with Section 419.
High - hazard and storage occupancies shall not be permitted in
a live /work unit. The aggregate area of storage in the nonresi-
dential portion of the live /work unit shall be limited to 10 per-
cent of the space dedicated to nonresidential activities.
419.3 Means of egress. Except as modified by this section, the
provisions for Group R -2 occupancies in Chapter 10 shall
apply to the entire live /work unit.
419.3.1 Egress capacity. The egress capacity for each ele-
ment of the live /work unit shall be based on the occupant
load for the function served in accordance with Table
1004.1.1.
419.3.2 Sliding doors. Where doors in a means of egress are
of the horizontal- sliding type, the force to slide the door to
its fully open position shall not exceed 50 pounds (220 N)
with a perpendicular force against the door of 50 pounds
(220 N).
419.3.3 Spiral stairways. Spiral stairways that conform to
the requirements of Section 1009.9 shall be permitted.
[F] 418.5 Nitr ellulose storage. Nitrocellu se storage shall 419.3.4 Locks. Egress doors shall be permitted to be locked
be located on detached pad or in a separate strt tore or a room in accordance with Item 4 of Section 1008.1.9.3.
enclosed wit no less than 2 -hour fire barriers onstnicted in
accordance with Section 707 or horizontal ass blies con- 419.4 Vertical openings. Floor openings between floor levels
structed i accordance with Section 712, or both. of a live /work unit are permitted without enclosure.
[F] 418. Finished products. Storage rooms for finis ed prod- 419.5 Fire protection. The live /work unit shall be provided
ucts th t are flammable or combustible liquids shall e sepa- with a monitored fire alarm system where required by Section
rated rom the processing area by not less than 2 -h r fire 907.2.9 and an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with
Barr ers constructed in accordance with Section 707 or ori- Section 903.2.8.
zo al assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 12, 419.6 Structural. Floor loading for the areas within a
o oth. live /work unit shall be designed to conform to Table 1607.1
based on the function within the space.
SECTION 419
LIVE/WORK UNITS
419.1 General. A live /work unit is a dwelling unit or sleeping
unit in which a significant portion of the space includes a non-
residential use that is operated by the tenant and shall comply
with Sections 419.1 through 419.8.
Exception: Dwelling or sleeping units that include an
office that is less than 10 percent of the area of the dwell-
ing unit shall not be classified as a live /work unit.
419.1.1 Limitations. The following shall apply to all
live /work areas:
1. The live /work unit is permitted to be a maximum of
3,000 square feet (279 m'-);
2. The nonresidential area is permitted to be a maximum
50 percent of the area of each live/work unit;
419.7 Accessibility. Accessibility shall be designed in accor-
dance with Chapter 11.
419.8 Ventilation. The applicable requirements of the Interna-
tional Mechanical Code shall apply to each area within the
live /work unit for the function within that space.
SECTION 420
IPS 1 -1, R -1, R-
420.1 General. Occt Gies ' in G ps I -1, R -1, R -2 and R -3
shall comply with the provt of this section and other appli-
cable provisions of this c e.
420.2 Separation ls. Walls separatin elling units in the
same builds walls separating sleeping uun' in the same
buildin d walls separating dwelling or sleeping �bui
oth occupancies contiguous to them in the sam
70 2012 NORTH CAROLINA BUILDING CODE
11
From:
Patricia J. McGuire
To:
Perdita Holtz
Cc:
Martin Roupe; Christina Moon
Subject:
RE: UDO Text Amendment that Applies to the Rural Buffer - Home Occupation Standards
Date:
Tuesday, November 26, 2013 7:40:00 PM
Dear Perdita,
Carrboro staff have a few comments and suggestions for the ordinance revisions:
1) There appear to be benefits associated with offering additional economic opportunities to
properties in the Rural Buffer and elsewhere in the county, so long as such uses are
consistent with the purposes of the zoning districts otherwise.
2) You might consider expanding the use of performance standards as a means of limiting
further or reducing entirely the exclusion of specific uses. Such standards could specify
screening, sizing, siting, or parking provisions that would mitigate the impacts that presently
necessitate excluding them entirely.
3) You might consider clarifying the traffic generation provisions to distinguish between traffic
generated by the use and traffic generated in support of the use. Are the regulations
intended to allow or prohibit a resident from operating a single —truck tractor - trailor
business from their home, for example? If only a single driver /single -truck use was
considered acceptable, but a larger trucking operation was not, perhaps the vehicle storage,
number of employees and screening requirements could be modified accordingly?
4) You might consider clarifying whether outdoor storage includes the storage or parking of
vehicles that are used in conjunction with a home occupation.
Thanks for the opportunity to review. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have a question.
Trish
Patricia J. McGuire, AICP, CZO, CFM
Planning Director
Town of Carrboro
30I W. Main Street
Carrboro, North Carolina 275I0
350 54' 4I ", -790 04' 39"
9I9 -9I8 -7327 (T) /9I9 -9I8 -4454 (F)
gmc it (t 7. ci.carrboro.nc.us http: / /townofcarrboro orQ
12
From: Perdita Holtz [ mailto :pholtzCaoranaecountinc.gov]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:14 AM
To: J.B. Culpepper (jbculpepper(o )townofchapelhill.org); Patricia J. McGuire
Cc: Craig Benedict; Ashley E.. Moncado; Christina Moon; ( gpoveromo (abtownofchapelhill.ora)
Subject: UDO Text Amendment that Applies to the Rural Buffer - Home Occupation Standards
Hello JB and Trish,
Pursuant to the JPA Agreement, we are sending the attached proposed UDO text amendment to you
for review and comment. We are proposing to change the existing standards for Home Occupations
allowed in the residential zoning districts, including the RB (Rural Buffer) zoning district. We-are also
proposing to have a category of "Minor Home Occupation" and "Major Home Occupation" (we
currently do not have two classes of Home Occupations). Major Home Occupations will not be
allowed in the Rural Buffer; only Minor Home Occupations would be allowed in the RB.
I have also attached a chart you may find helpful that depicts the existing and proposed standards.
This chart is not part of the actual amendments; it's just used for informational purposes.
These text changes are on the November 25 quarterly public hearing agenda. It would be great if
you could forward any comments to us before the 25th. If you need more time than that to review
this item, please let me know. The JPA Agreement stipulates that the County will not adopt an
amendment affecting the RB until the Towns have had 30 days to review and comment on the
amendment. This amendment is scheduled for adoption consideration in January.
Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions.
Perdita
Perdita Holtz, AICP
Planning Systems Coordinator
Orange County (NC) Planning Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, 2nd Floor (physical)
P.O. Box 8181 (mail)
13
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919)245 -2578
Town of Carrboro, NC Website - http: / /w-,)�,%v.townofearrboro.org E -mail correspondence to and from this
address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
14
�pW N O�
c'yAPEI ���`•
December 6, 2013
Ms. Perdita Holtz
Planning Systems Coordinator
Orange County Planning Department
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
PLANNING
Town of Chapel Hill
405 Martin Luther Iung Jr. Blvd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
phone (919) 968 -2728 fax (919) 969 -2014
www.to-,vnofchapelhill.org
Subject: Courtesy Review Comments on Proposed Unified Development Ordinance
Amendment Regarding Home Occupation Permits in the Rural Buffer
Dear Ms. Holtz:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed zoning ordinance amendment regarding
home occupation permits in the rural buffer area. We do not have any comments on the proposed
ordinance amendment as it relates to the Joint Planning Agreement.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (919) 968 -2728.
Regards,
14 0 (If.
Phil Mason, AICP
Principal Planner
15
Comments Received at the November Quarterly Public Hearin
Minor home occupation regulations should
Planning Board reviewed BOCC comment and
incorporate existing standards without any
proceeded with proposed amendments as
modifications. All proposed revisions allowing for
presented in Attachment 2.
an increase in employees, square footage
allowances, and size of accessory structures shall
be through the major home occupation process
requiring a Special Use Permit.
Concerns with existing standards requiring
Existing standards contained within the UDO
landscaping and buffering of accessory structures
have been revised to allow for exemptions in
used in the home occupation.
screening requirements of accessory structures.
Concern with existing nonprofit language being
Proposed standards for special events have been
too vague regarding nonprofit special events.
revised to specifically reference 501(c)3
nonprofits.
Concerns with existing standards regarding the
Existing standards contained within the UDO
appearance of a residential accessory structure.
have been revised to provide clarity regarding the
appearance of accessory structures.
Concerns regarding proposed standards being
Proposed revisions to existing standards are more
too restrictive and creating a financial burden on
lenient and less restrictive allowing for more
business owners.
employees, visitors, daily trips, and deliveries and
an increase in the overall size of home
occupations. Existing and proposed standards
may result in financial constraints on a business
owner which are typically incurred with the
opening of any new business.
Concerns with trade uses, including
Existing standards contained within the UDO
plumbing, electrical, and building
have been revised to allow these uses to operate
contracting, not being permitted as a
from a residential property with an approved
home occupation.
home occupation permit.
Concerns regarding setback standards
Proposed setback standards for outdoor storage
for accessory structures and outdoor
space have been revised to allow for greater
storage space used in a major home
flexibility in setback standards for accessory
occupation.
structures and outdoor storage space through
the Special Use Permit process.
Attachment 2
Ordinance #: ORD- 2014 -007
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY
16
Whereas, the County has completed a review of existing home occupation standards
based on the Unified Development Ordinance Implementation Bridge report, and
Whereas, as a result of said review, the County identified necessary amendments to the
Unified Development Ordinance to accommodate and support the use of home
occupations while protecting the residential character of neighborhoods, and
Whereas, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance have
been deemed complete, and
Whereas, the County has held the required public hearing and has found the proposed
text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive
Plan.
Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Unified
Development Ordinance of Orange County is hereby amended as depicted in the attached
pages.
Be it further ordained that -this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances
and that this ordinance is effective on July 1, 2014.
Upon motion of Commissioner
seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2014.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2014 as relates in anyway to
the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the
said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
.2014.
17
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
M
UDO AMENDMENT PACKET NOTES:
The following packet details the proposed modifications to existing home occupation standards.
Proposed regulations include the establishment of two new home occupation categories
allowing for minor and major (larger scale) home occupations. The amendment package also
proposes the re- numbering and reformatting of Sections 2.22, 5.4.3, and 5.5.3, to accommodate
the new standards.
As the number of affected pages /sections of the existing UDO are being modified with this
proposal, staff has divided the proposed amendments into the following color coded
classifications:
• Red Text: Denotes new, proposed text, that staff is suggesting be added to the UDO
• Black StF5kethFeugl4 Text: Denotes existing text that staff is proposing to delete
• Underlined Green Text: Denotes modifications made following the November Quarterly
Public Hearing and December Planning Board meeting.
Staff has included footnotes within the amendment package to provide additional
information /rationale concerning the proposed amendments to aid in your review.
Only those pages of the UDO impacted by the proposed modification(s) have been included
within this packet. Some text on the following pages has a large "X" through it to denote that
these sections are not part of the amendments under consideration. The text is shown only
because in the full UDO it is on the same page as text proposed for amendment or footnotes
from previous sections `spill over' onto the included page. Text with a large "X" is not proposed
for modification.
Please note that the page numbers in this amendment packet may or may not necessarily
correspond to the page numbers in the adopted UDO because adding text may shift all of
the text/sections downward.
Users are reminded that these excerpts are part of a much larger document (the UDO) that
regulates land use and development in Orange County. The full UDO is available online at:
http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /Ordinances.asp
19
Article 2: Procedures
Section 2.22: Home Occupations
(3) Structural stormwater measures that are designed, constructed and maintained
in accordance with the NC DWQ Stormwater BMP Design Manual, approved
accounting tool, and requirements listed in Section 6.14 will be presumed to meet
the required performance standards of Section 6.14. Submittals containing
measures not designed to these specifications, may be approved on a case by
case basis provided the applicant provides adequate data and information
showing how the deviations meet the requirements of Section 6.14.
(C) Plan Approval
The Erosion Control Officer is authorized to approve any Stormwater Management Plan
which is in conformance with the performance standards specified in the NC DWQ
Stormwater BMP Design Manual, and other requirements of this Ordinance.
(D) Approved Plan a Prerequisite
The Erosion Control Officer is not authorized to issue any permits for development on
any land that is defined as new development under Section 6.14 of this Ordinance
unless and until a Stormwater Management Plan in compliance with the requirements of
this Ordinance has been approved.
(E) Design of Permanent Nutrient Export Reduction Structural Stormwater Measures
When a permanent nutrient export reduction structural stormwater measure is required
for new development to meet the requirements of this Ordinance, a North Carolina
registered professional engineer shall prepare the plan with the Engineer's Certification of
Stormwater Management affixed, signed, sealed and dated.
• N 2.22: HOME OCCUPATIONS
2.22.1 Application Requirements
(A) An application for a Home Occupation Permit shall be filed with the Planning Director on
forms provided by the Planning Department.
(B) Application forms shall be prepared so that when completed a full and accurate
description of the proposed use, including its location, appearance, and operational
characteristics are disclosed.
(C) An application for a minor home occupation shall include a plot plan that adheres to the
requirements of Sections 2.4.3 and 5.5.3
(D) An application for a major home occupation shall require a Class B Special Use Permit
and adhere to the requirements of Sections 2.5.3, 2.7, and 5.5.3.
2.22.2 Conditions of
(A) If conditions are attached to the approval of a permit, they may address deficiencies in
meeting specific Ordinance requirements or they may address specific impacts which
result from the operation of the home occupation.
(B) If conditions address specific impacts which result from the operation of the home
occupation, the conditions may include, but not be limited to the following limitations:
(1) Hours of operation;
(2) Number of vehicles to be parked on the premises;
(3) The location of an accessory building, storage area or parking on the property.
(C) The Planning Director may require greater setbacks and /or additional landscaping or
screening to adequately screen the home occupation from adjoining properties.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -63
20
Article 5: Uses
Section 5 4: Standards for Temporary Uses
5.4.3 Special Events
(A) Arts and Cultural Special Events
(1) All arts and cultural special events organized, conducted, and affiliated with a
501(c)(3) nonprofit organization or government entity, for example the annual
Orange County Open Studio Tour, shall be exempt from the special event review
and permitting process.'
(B) General Standards of Evaluation
(1) The application shall include a written description of the type of event planned,
the number of participants for any single event, the frequency of the events, the
anticipated hours of operation, the potential dates for the events, and the method
and adequacy of sewage disposal, recycling and waste disposal, access,
parking, lighting, and signage;
(2) The plot plan shall be accompanied by written approval from the Orange County
Division of Environmental Health regarding the adequacy of the water - supply and
wastewater disposal;
(3) The plot plan shall have written approval from the Orange County Fire Marshal;
(4) The applicant shall submit a copy of notification sent to the Orange County
Sheriff's Department stating the type of events, number of participants, date(s)
and hours of operation, and emergency contact information. A location map
must be attached to the notice provided to the Sheriff;
(5) Lot size shall be adequate to accommodate all proposed activities including safe
vehicular and pedestrian circulation;
(6) The proposed activity will occur on no more frequently than seven days in a 30-
day period, and on no more than 50 days per year; and
(7) Signs shall be permitted in accordance with Section 6.12.11(D).
(C) Standards for Class B Special Use Permit
(1) Submittal Requirements
In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following information
shall be supplied as part of the application for approval of this use:
(a) A written description of the exact type of event planned, the maximum
number of participants, the frequency of the event, anticipated dates and
hours of operation, method and adequacy of sewage disposal, recycling
and waste disposal, access, parking, lighting, and signage;
(b) A site plan showing the boundaries of the area to be used for the events,
the locations of access points, parking, service areas, activity areas,
restrooms, solid waste disposal /recycling facilities, lighting, and signage;
(c) Written comments from the Orange County Health Department, Division
of Environmental Health regarding the adequacy of plans restroom
facilities and food preparation /handling arrangements, and
' Proposed amendments regarding arts and cultural special events will address concerns with
accommodating and permitting community wide events conducted by a nonprofit or government
organization more efficiently. These standards will allow art and studio home occupations that participate
in these events to be exempt from the Class B Special Use Permit process.
2 Adding a new (A) resulted in the automatic renumbering of subsequent subsections.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -30
Article 5: Uses 21
Section 5 5- Standards for Residential Uses
(c) The use of the building shall be only for the period of time specified and
for the use specified.
(d) The proposed use is a permitted use in the district in which it is located.
9 . - 0 - -
5.5.1 Accessory Structures and Uses
(A) General Standards of Evaluation
(1) Accessory structures and uses shall not be located in any required front open
space and shall conform to the principal setbacks of the district where located
unless otherwise provided in this Section.
(2) An attached private garage, or carport, not exceeding 12 feet in height, may
occupy a portion of the required side open space, provided that this does not
result in a required side open space of less than 7% of the lot width, nor a total,
when combined with the required side open space of the lot immediately
adjacent, of less than eight feet.
(3) Mobile homes as accessory structures to residential uses are prohibited.
5.5.2 Efficiency Apartment
(A) General Standards of Evaluation
(1) There shall be no more than one efficiency apartment, whether detached'or
attached, on any lot.
(2) The efficiency unit shall contains no more than 800 square feet of gross floor
area.
(3) The residential lot shall meet the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning
district in which it is located.
(4) The efficiency unit shall comply with the N.C. Residential Building Code including
minimum light /ventilation and room sizes
(5) The efficiency unit shall be accessory to the principal dwelling unit and may be
attached or detached.
(6) The efficiency unit shall be served by an approved water supply and sanitary
facilities.
(7) The efficiency unit shall remain in the same ownership as the primary residence.
5.5.3 Home Occupations
(A) General Standards
(1) Submittal Requirements
In addition to the completed application form, applicants for a minor or major
home occupation shall submit the following to the Planning Department:
(a) Minor Home Occupations
(i) A plot plan of the property on which the home occupation is to be
located The plot plan shall show.
a. The location of the residence and /or accessory building
in which the home occupation is to be located in relation
to existing property lines and adjacent homes;
b. The location, number, and means of access to required
off street parking areas; and
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -33
22
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.5- Standards for Residential Uses
C. The location and type of required landscaping and /or
screening.
(ii) A floor plan of the residence and /or accessory building in which
the home occupation is to be located showing the location, size,
and use of each room or area within the residence and /or
accessory building.
(b) Major Home Occupations
(i) A site plan of the property on which the home occupation is to be
located. The site plan shall show:
a. The location of the residence and /or accessory building
in which the home occupation is to be located in relation
to existing property lines and adjacent homes;
b. The location, number, and means of access to required
off street parking areas; and
C. The location and type of required landscaping and /or
screening.
(ii) A floor plan of the residence and /or accessory building in which
the home occupation is to be located showing the location, size,
and use of each room or area within the residence and /or
accessory building.
(2) Standards of Evaluation
(a) All Home Occupations
(i) No home occupation may be operated in a residence except as
permitted under this Ordinance and only after a Home
Occupation Permit has be issued in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2-.24 2.22 of this Ordinance.
(ii) Home based business operations that conduct only online retail
sales and do not include nonresident employees located onsite
signage, or onsite students, customers and /or clients do not
require a home occupation permit.
(iii) Uses Not Permitted
Except for the office component of the business
operation, the following activities are explicitly prohibited
as home occupations:
i. Automotive repair,
ii. Automotive service,
iii. Automotive detailing,
iv. Body shop, and
V. Hauling-,-a444
AA. eleGtFiGal, plumbing, d
3 Revisions have been made to address Planning Board comments regardinq onsite retail sales
Proposed standards will exempt home occupations conducting retail sales through the internet if the
operation has no onsite employees, si na a and visitors from the home occupation Permit process.
Based on comments received at the Quarterly Public Hearing revisions to this Section will allow
building, electrical plumbina. mechanical grading and other construction contracting to operate from a
Orange County, North Carolina - Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -34
23
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.5: Standards for Residential Uses
The above list is not intended to include all uses which
may be unsuitable as a home occupation. Home
Occupation applications for other uses may be denied if
the Standards of Evaluation listed herein are not fully
met.
(iv) No equipment or process shall be employed that will cause
noise, vibration, glare, odor or electrical interference detectable
to the normal senses at the lot lines in the case of detached
dwelling units or outside the dwelling unit, in the case of attached
dwelling units.
(v) The on- premises sale and /or delivery of goods which are not
produced or modified in a manner that adds value to the product
on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery
and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. No
goods, products, or commodities purchased and secured for the
main purpose of onsite resale shall be permitted.
(vi) All events conducted in connection with the home occupation
and exceed the number of permitted daily students, customers,
and /or clients contained within Sections 5.5.3(A)(2)(b)(i)d and
5.5.3(A)(2)(c)(i)g must adhere to Section 5.4.3, Special Events.5
(b) Minor Home Occupations
(i) General Operations
The following requirements apply to minor home occupations in
all residential districts:
a. The owner or operator of the home occupation must live
in a residence located on the same zoning lot as the
home occupation. Ne mo,e than tWO iRdi:id6lalS ,,,,t
liviRg in the F86ideRG8 mn weFk ', the heme r^ t'
Minor home occupations shall not exceed three
nonresident employees onsite at any one time.
b. In all residential districts e crept RR, AR and R 1, no
more than 35% of the floor area of the dwelling unit or
500 750 square feet, whichever is less, may be used for
the home occupation.
C. Up to three students, customers, and /or clients shall be
permitted onsite at any one time, not to exceed a total of
six students, customers, and /or clients per day.
(ii) Limitations on Traffic Generation
a. Traffic generated by ViBitGFG, ^„S+^^ eFG Or .JoG"orio--
employees, students, customers, and /or clients shall not
exceed more than twe business trips peF h^
than eight twenty trips per day. or ^re than tW9
m
deliveries "f ^r^d, ^+S ^ materials peF week-. All
residential property with an approved home occupation permit Revisions are proposed to additional
Sections of the UDO to address potential traffic impacts as a result of these uses being permitted as a
home occupation. The revisions also make it clearer that an office related to the types of uses in i
through v. may be allowed, however, it is the actual activities that are not allowed as a home occupation
S Approved home occupations that conduct special events onsite are required to adhere to Section 5.4.3
Special Events. Home occupations that participate in a nonprofit or government organized event including
the annual Orange County Open Studio Tour shall be waived from the special event review process as
proposed within Section 5.4.3 Special Events.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -35
24
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.5: Standards for Residential Uses
deliveries must be made by vehicles of a size normally
used for household deliveries . 6
b. Parking generated by the home occupation shall be met
off the street and ether not in a required yard area.
C. There shall be no use of a vehicle with a load GapaGity
excess of ene ten a gross vehicle weight in excess of
14,000 pounds used in connection with the home
occupation'. iRG16iding h' I used fer delivery nr niGk
i rl rl large r ni I r + L e d delivery ! tFUGkS aR
h as these d by UPS, but would nn+ innl ide
h' I h as + + trailers er GI U n +rU Gks 8
(iii) Use of Accessory Structures
a. An accessory building containing up to 1088 1,500
square feet may be utilized in the RC2 AR 2Rd R-4
residential zoning districts, detailed in Section 3.3,9
provided that the bUild+ng structure is built with suitable
residential construction materials to resemble has the
appearance of a residential accessory structure.10
b. The accessory structure must be screened from view of
the road and adjacent property by a densely planted
evergreen hedge of shrubs or trees. In lieu of an
evergreen hedge, a six foot stockade fence and
deciduous plant materials vegetation planted along the
outside of the fence may be used for screening
purposes. Screening will not be required when:
i. The accessory structure is located 40 feet or
more from all property lines; or
6 Existing standards regulating the number of hourly and daily trips were found to be inconsistent with
proposed language regulating the number of students customers and /or clients permitted onsite per day.
As a result revisions will allow for an increase in the number of daily trips resulting from the operation of
the home occupation Proposed standards are to regulate the number of daily trips generated from
employees and visitors associated with the home occupation and not the number of daily trips generated
from the residential use of the property. Please note that a "trip count' is one direction only (a round trip,
in and out is counted as two trips in traffic engineering calculations). Additional revisions shall allow for
an increase in deliveries while limiting the type of vehicle to a size normally used for household deliveries.
'Weight standards have been modified replacing load capacity with the more common and familiar
vehicle gross weight standard. The proposed weight of 14,000 pounds will allow for the use of standard
and larger sized pick -up trucks in connection with all home occupations.
e Staff recommends the existing language to be revised in order to a avoid a potential inconsistency with
standards contained within item a.
9 Revised standards are proposed to allow the use of accessory structures up to 1,500 feet in all
residential districts contained within Section 3.3, Residential Districts, instead of limiting this use to only
the RB, AR, and R -1 districts.
10 Revisions will clarify concerns raised at the Quarterly Public Hearing regarding existing language
addressing the appearance of accessory structures Standards require accessory structures to be
constructed with suitable residential construction materials in order to avoid commercially designed
structures to be located in a residential zoning district. Existing and proposed standards do not require
accessory structures to take on the exact appearance of the residential structure.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -36
25
Article 5: Uses
Section 5 5- Standards for Residential Uses
ii. Existing vegetation provides suitable screening
of the accessory structure from all adiacent
properties. i
C. New structures built for the purpose of conducting a
home occupation shall not exceed 4440 1,500 square
feet in area.
An existing accessory structure which is larger than
4889 1,500 square feet may be used for the home
occupation provided that no more than 4809 1,500
square feet is used for the home occupation and the
area is physically separated by walls or other barriers.
In order to qualify as an existing accessory structure for
the purpose of conducting a home occupation, the
structure must have been constructed to meet building
code requirements applicable to a residential accessory
structure, and must have been in existence for at least
36 months.
(iv) Use of Outdoor Storage
a. Up to 500 square feet of outdoor storage area may be
t+sed shall be permitted only in the RB, AR and R -1
zoning districts provided that it:
i Is clearly defined on the site plan and on the
ground.
ii. Is located at least 40 feet from any lot line or
road right -of -way; and
iii. Is totally screened from the view from the road
and from adjacent property in the same manner
as is required for accessory buildings.
(c) Major Home Occupations
(i) General Operations
The following requirements apply to major home occupations:
a. Major home occupations shall be permitted only in the
AR and R -1 zoning districts.
b. All major home occupations shall be located on parcels
at least five acres in size.
C. The owner or operator of the home occupation must live
in a residence located on the same zoning lot as the
home occupation. Up to six permanent and /or
temporary nonresident employees may be permitted
onsite at any one time with the exact number established
in the Special Use Permit.
d. The total amount of square footage permitted for a
residential dwelling unit used in conjunction with a major
home occupation, which exceeds standards referenced
in Section 5.5.3.A.2(b)(i)b, shall be determined with the
" Existing standards regarding screening of accessory structures have been revised to address
comments received at the Quarterly Public Hearing Proposed revisions will allow accessory structures
located at least 40 feet from all property lines or sites providing screening with the use of existing
vegetation to be exempt from screening requirements
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -37
26
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.5: Standards for Residential Uses
approved Special Use Permit, but in no case shall the
total exceed 50% of the floor area of the dwelling unit.
e. Up to eight students, customers, and /or clients shall be
permitted onsite at any one time, not to exceed a total of
fifteen students, customers, and /or clients per day.
(ii) Limitations on Traffic Generation
a. Traffic generated by employes, students, customers
and /or clients shall not exceed more than fifty trips per
day. All deliveries must be made by vehicles of a size
normally used for household deliveries.
b. All major home occupations shall conform to the
standards of Section 5.5.3(A)(2)(b)(ii)c.
C. Parking generated by the home occupation shall be met
off the street and set back at least 40 feet from all
property lines.
d. Major home occupations located on public roadways
may be required to submit a driveway permit prior to
approval.
e. Major home occupations located on shared private
roadways shall be required to submit a private road
maintenance agreement prior to approval.
(iii) Use of Accessory Structures
a. An accessory building containing up to 2,500 square feet
may be utilized, with the approval of a major home
occupation, on tracts totaling five to ten acres in size. An
accessory building containing up to 3,000 square feet
may be utilized, with the approval of a major home
occupation, on tracts greater than ten acres in size.
b. All accessory structures shall be built with suitable
residential construction materials to resemble the
appearance of a residential accessory structure
C. Setback standards for all accessory structures shall be
determined with the approved Special Use Permit and in
no case be less than 40 feet from all Property lines 12
d. The accessory structure must be screened from view of
the road and adjacent property by a densely planted
evergreen hedge of shrubs or trees. In lieu of an
evergreen hedge, a six foot stockade fence and
deciduous vegetation planted on the outside of the fence
may be used for screening purposes. Screening will not
be required when:
i. The accessory structure is located 80 feet or
more from all property lines; or
ii. Existing vegetation provides suitable screening
of the accessory structure from all adjacent
properties.
'Z Proposed setback standards for accessory structures have been revised to address comments
received at the Quarterly Public Hearing Proposed revisions will allow setbacks to be determined on a
case-by-case basis through the Special Use Permit rocess but will still require a minimum setback of 40
feet from all propel lines.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -38
27
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.5: Standards for Residential Uses
e. New accessory structures built for the purpose of
conducting a home occupation shall not exceed square
footage allowances referenced in Section
5.5.3.A(2)(e)(iii)a.
f. An existing accessory structure which is larger than the
permitted size referenced in Section 5.5.3.A(2)(e)(iii)a
may be used for the home occupation provided that no
more than the permitted amount of square feet is used
for the home occupation and the area is physically
separated by walls or other barriers. In order to qualify
as an existing accessory structure for the purpose of
conducting a home occupation, the structure must have
been constructed to meet building code requirements
applicable to a residential accessory structure, and must
have been in existence for at least 36 months.
(iv) Use of Outdoor Storage Space
Up to 500 square feet of outdoor storage area may be
used in conjunction with major home occupations
provided that it is:
i. Clearly defined on the site plan and on the
ground.
ii. Setback standards for outdoor storage space
shall be determined with the approved Special
Use Permit and in no case be less than 40 feet
from all property lines; and
iii. Totally screened from the view from the road
and from adjacent property in the same manner
required for accessory buildings.
5.5.4 Mobile Home Parks
(A) Standards for MHP -CZ
(1) Permitted Uses and Structures
In addition to Mobile Homes, as defined by this Ordinance, the following
accessory structures and uses shall be permitted:
(a) Caretaker's or manager's home or office.
(b) Service buildings and areas necessary to provide washing and drying
machines for domestic laundry, sanitation, rest rooms, storage, vending
machines, and other similar services provided by the facility for the use
and convenience of the mobile home park tenants.
(c) Recreation buildings /facilities and areas serving only the mobile home
park in which they are located.
(d) Customary accessory buildings and facilities necessary for operation of
the mobile home park in which they are located.
(e) Storage buildings for individual mobile home spaces and intended for the
exclusive use of the occupants of the mobile home space.
13 Proposed setback standards for outdoor storage space have been revised to address comments
received at the Quarterly Public Hearing. Proposed standards will allow setbacks to be determined on a
case -by -case basis through the Special Use Permit process, but will still require the minimum setback
standard of 40 feet currently contained in Section 5.5.3(A)(2)(f)(i)b of the UDO.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -39
M
Article 10: Definitions
Section 10.1: Definitions
High- Density Option
One of two approaches available for development in some watershed overlay districts. Generally, the
high- density option relies on density limits and engineered stormwater controls to minimize the risk of
water pollution.
Highest Adjacent Grade (HAG)
The highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of
the structure.
Historic structure
Any structure that is:
a) Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the U.S.
Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of Interior as meeting the
requirements for individual listing on the National Register;
b) Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of Interior as contributing to the historical
significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary
to qualify as a registered historic district;
c) Individually listed on a local inventory of historic landmarks in communities with a "Certified Local
Government (CLG) Program," which has been approved by the Department of the Interior; or
d) Certified as contributing to the historical significance of a historic district designated by a
community with a "Certified Local Government (CLG) Program ". (CLG Programs are approved
by the US Department of the Interior in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources through the State Historic Preservation Officer as having met the
requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended).
Holiday Decoration
Holiday displays, decorations and greetings, which relate to any federally designated holiday, legal
holiday or religious holiday.
Home Occupation, Major
An accessory business use which is owned and operated by the resident of the property, located on a
single parcel of land at least five acres in size in the AR and R -1 zoning districts, and is clearly incidental
and subordinate to the principal residential use of the property. Major home occupations, which do not
meet the standards of a minor home occupation, shall accommodate for larger scale accessory business
uses by allowing for an increase in square footage, number of onsite employees, students, customers,
clients, and annual events with an approved Class B Special Use Permit.
Home Occupation, Minor
An accessory business use which is owned or operated by the resident of a residentially -zoned property
Which business and is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal residential use of the property.
Hotel, Motel, Motor Lodge, Motor Inn, Inn, Tourist Court
A building or group of attached or detached buildings containing, in combination, ten or more lodging
units, or ten or more dwelling units intended primarily for rental or lease to transients by the day or week,
as distinguished from multi - family dwellings, rooming houses and residential hotels in which rentals and
leases are for weekly or longer periods and occupants are generally residents rather than transients.
Hotel, Residential
A building or group of attached or detached buildings containing, in combination, ten or more lodging
units available for occupancy only for periods of thirty days or longer, provided, however, that temporary
lodging units for guests of regular tenants may be provided in any residential hotel, with number of such
units limited to 10% of the number of tenant lodging units.
Immediate Neighborhood
A subdivision or area of the county which distinguishes it from other subdivisions or areas by virtue of its
location within the service area of a park site or sites as shown on the adopted "Recreation Service Area
Boundaries Map" on file in the Planning Department.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 10 -14
Attachment 3
Pronosp_ri Ampnrlmant Ciimmnrxj
29
Existing language to remain within the referenced section of the UDO
Proposed language to be added within the referenced section of the UDO
Existing language to be revised within the referenced section of the UDO
r
Revised/ Proposed
Standards
Item
Existing Standards
Minor Home Occupations
Major Home Occupations
Application
Existing standards require an application,
Existing standards will remain.
Proposed standards will require an application, site
Requirements
plot plan, and staff approval.
plan, and an approved Class B Special Use Permit.
Section 2.22.1
Square Footage
Current standards allow up to
Proposed revisions allow up to 35% of the floor
Proposed standards will allow up to 50% of the floor
Sections
35% of the floor area of the dwelling unit
area of the dwelling unit or 750 square feet,
area of the dwelling unit, determined with the
5.5.3(A)(2)(b)(i)
or 500 square feet, whichever is less, to be
whichever is less, to be used in a minor home
Special Use Permit, to be used in a major home
5.5.3(A)(2)(c)(i)
used in the home occupation.
occupation.
occupation.
Employees
Two nonresident employees are currently
Revisions will allow for three nonresident
Proposed standards will allow for up to six
Sections
permitted onsite.
employees onsite.
nonresident employees onsite, with the exact
5.5.3(A)(2)(b)(i)
number established in the Special Use Permit.
5.5.3(A)(2)(c)(i)
Traffic Generation
A maximum of eight trips per day are
permitted with existing standards.
Proposed revisions will allow fora maximum of
twenty trips per day.
Proposed standards will allow for a maximum of
fifty trips per day.
Sections
5.5.3(A)(2)(b)(ii)
5.5.3(A)(2)(c)(ii
Existing standards allow for two deliveries
Proposed standards will allow for unlimited number of deliveries, but will require all deliveries to be
of products or materials per week.
made by vehicles of a size normally used for household deliveries.
Current standards state traffic generated
Proposed standards will allow for an increase in
Proposed standards will allow for an increase in the
by visitors should not exceed more than
the maximum number of daily trips and permit
maximum number of daily trips and permit up to
two trips per hour or more than eight trips
up to three students, customers, and /or clients
eight students, customers, and /or clients onsite at
per day.
onsite at any one time, not to exceed a total of
any one time, not to exceed a total of fifteen
six students, customers, and /or clients per day.
students, customers, and /or clients per day.
Accessory Structures
Currently, accessory structures containing
up to 1,000 square feet are permitted in
Revisions will allow for accessory structures up
to 1,500 square feet to be used in the operation
Proposed standards will allow for accessory
structures up to 2,500 square feet to be utilized with
Sections
5.5.3(A)(2)(b)(iii)
the operation of a home occupation.
of the minor home occupation. Revisions will
the approval of a major home occupation on tracts
5.5.3(A)(2)(c)(iii)
also provide for an exemption from landscape
totaling five to ten acres in size and up to 3,000
requirements based on setbacks or existing
square feet on tracts greater than ten acres in size.
vegetation.
Standards will also provide for an exemption from
landscape requirements based on setbacks or
existing vegetation.
Existing language to remain within the referenced section of the UDO
Proposed language to be added within the referenced section of the UDO
Existing language to be revised within the referenced section of the UDO
Proposed Amendment Summary
Existing language to remain within the referenced section of the UDO
Proposed language to be added within the referenced section of the UDO
Existing language to be revised within the referenced section of the UDO
Proposed Standards
Minor Home Occupations
Major Home Occupations
Item
Existing Standards
Outdoor Storage
Existing standards allow up to 500 square
Existing standards will remain.
Proposed standards will allow for up to 500 square feet of
Space
feet of outdoor storage space in the RB,
AR, and R -1 zoning districts with
outdoor storage space with landscape standards. Setback
standards will be determined with the approved Special
Sections
5.5.3(A)(2)(b)(iv)
landscape and setback standards.
Use Permit.
5.5.3(A)(2)(c)(iv)
Special Events
Current standards require all proposed
special events to follow the Class B Special
Proposed standards will allow for all special events planned, conducted, and affiliated with a 501(c)3
nonprofit organization or government entity to be exempt from the special event review and permitting
Section
5.43
Use Permit process.
process.
Permitted Uses
Current standards do not permit building,
electrical, plumbing, mechanical, grading,
Proposed revisions will allow these uses to operate in a residential district with an approved home
occupation permit.
Section 5.5.3(A)(2)
or other construction contracting as home
occupations.
Vehicle Weight
Currently, there shall be no use of a
vehicle with a load capacity in excess of
Revisions will allow for the use of vehicles up to a gross vehicle weight of 14,000 pounds to be used in
connection with the home occupation.
Sections
5.5.3(A)(2)(b)(ii)
one ton used in connection with the home
5.5.3(A)(2)(c)(ii
occupation
Definitions
Existing standards define home
occupation as an accessory business use,
Proposed standards define a minor home
occupation as an accessory business use which
Major home occupations will be defined as an accessory
business use which is owned and operated by the
Article 10
which is owned or operated by the
is owned or operated by the resident of a
resident of the property, located on a single parcel of land
resident of residentially -zoned property,
residentially -zoned property and is clearly
at least five acres in size in the AR and R -1 zoning districts,
which business is clearly incidental and
incidental and subordinate to the principal
and is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal
subordinate to the principal residential
residential use of the property.
residential use of the property. Major home occupations,
use of the property.
which do not meet the standards of a minor home
occupation, shall accommodate for larger scale accessory
business uses by allowing for an increase in square
footage, number of onsite employees, students,
customers, clients, and annual events with an approved
Class B Special Use Permit.
Existing language to remain within the referenced section of the UDO
Proposed language to be added within the referenced section of the UDO
Existing language to be revised within the referenced section of the UDO
Attachment 4
Home Occupations Report and Site Plan Examples
Prepared by Orange County Planning Staff
March 19, 2014
Introduction
At the July 10, 2013 Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board and Planning Director initiated a text
amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to modify existing language relating to the
regulation of home occupations within the county. Since then, staff has been working directly with the
Planning Board to review and revise existing home occupation standards contained in the UDO.
The purpose of pursuing an amendment to existing standards is to allow for the expansion of home
based businesses in the county. While working with the Planning Board, staff strived to develop
regulations that would create a reasonable balance between supporting the expansion of home based
businesses and protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods. Since the
proposed standards would have the greatest effects on the residential districts in which home
occupations are located, it was important to remember the primarily residential purpose and function of
these districts.
Strive to create a reasonable balance between supporting home based businesses
and protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods
* Proposed uses exceeding home occupation regulations may apply for a
conditional use permit or relocate to a commercial zoning district.
31
Review History
At the January 9, 2013 Planning Board meeting, Board members discussed areas of interest to be
worked on in the coming year. Many of these items were elements highlighted in the UDO
Implementation Bridge report prepared when the UDO was adopted in 2011. One item presented by the
Board and referenced in the Implementation Bridge report was the need to review home occupation
requirements to determine if there is a need to revise existing standards.
July to September Planning Board Review
At the July 2, 2013 Planning Board meeting, planning staff followed up with the Board's request with a
presentation of existing standards and a review of home occupation standards from other local
jurisdictions, including Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Chatham County. This presentation informed the
Planning Board how standards in other jurisdictions were much more restrictive compared to Orange
County's current standards in regards to number of employees, square footage, visitors, parking, and
traffic generation. During this meeting, Board members identified concerns with existing standards
being too limiting regarding number of employees and square footage thresholds. At that time, Board
members supported a text amendment revising existing standards for the November 25, 2013 Quarterly
Public Hearing. Based on recommendations and direction from the Planning Board in July, staff
continued the process by drafting text amendment language.
During the September 4, 2013 Planning Board meeting, draft language was presented to the Board for
review and comment. Additionally, during this time, staff worked with the Planning Board Chair and Vice
Chair to complete the Amendment Outline Form which was approved by the BOCC on September 5,
2013. Following this meeting, draft language was revised to reflect comments received regarding traffic
generation, number of daily onsite students, clients, and /or customers, special events, and exemptions
from the home occupation permit process.
October and November Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) Meetings
At the October 2, 2013 ORC meeting, revised draft amendment language was presented to the Board for
further review and comment. During this meeting, the Planning Board and staff discussed concerns
regarding parking, vehicle weight, and acreage requirements for major home occupations.
Following the September and October meetings, staff reviewed comments received from the Board and
identified concerns with the proposed recommendations regarding the effects on daily traffic counts. As
a result, staff conducted a meeting on October 16, 2013 with the Planning Board Chair to discuss these
concerns. During this meeting, proposed standards based on Planning Board's recommendation were
revised for review at the November 6, 2013 ORC meeting. At the November ORC meeting, the Planning
Board supported the amendment as presented, however, stated concerns regarding existing language in
the UDO not allowing specific uses, including plumbing, electrical, and building contracting, to operate
as a home occupation. No specific amendment requests were made at that time for review at the
Quarterly Public Hearing.
The Planning Board and planning staff worked together to develop amendments to present at the
November Quarterly Public Hearing that supported home based businesses and protected the character
and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods. The proposed amendments significantly increase the
opportunity for home based businesses to operate in Orange County with the development of a minor
and a major home occupation. The following graphic illustrates the number of existing and proposed
options available to accommodate and support businesses, including home occupations, in the rural and
urban areas of the county as a result of the proposed amendment.
K
33
Proposed standards bare
EXPANDED HOME BASED BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
througleut Orange county
Ed -rvng standards
Contained w1th %ti the WO
narrowly deli ed home
based business
Opp- tunifles
1 (Staffapproa�al)
Frvpased standards to be
added to the Uo
(class 8 SUP- Board of
Adlttsfinent)
Exempt I I Minor Horne I ` Major Home
i Occupation I Occupation
&&song process can
&I umd for
r"idc ntiw pM -4y
(Reavniryend
MwA SUP -WCQ
Erlsbng process for
ontyspedfradarms
of Me county
(AcMityAWes)
Residential Increase in intensity Non-Residential
(Rural) [ (Urban) 1
r
November Quarterly Public Hearing
At the November 25, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing, the Board of County Commissioners and Planning
Board provided the following comments regarding the proposed home occupation text amendment:
• Minor home occupation regulations should incorporate existing standards without any
modifications. All proposed revisions allowing for an increase in employees, square footage
allowances, and size of accessory structures shall be through the major home occupation
process requiring a Special Use Permit.
• Concerns with existing standards requiring screening and buffering of accessory structures used
in the home occupation.
• Concerns with existing standards regarding the appearance of a residential accessory structure.
• Concerns regarding proposed standards being too restrictive and creating a financial burden on
business owners.
• Concerns with trade uses, including plumbing, electrical, and building contracting, not being
permitted as a home occupation.
• Concerns regarding setback standards for outdoor storage space used in a major home
occupation.
Recognizing that a number of items needed to be addressed, staff recommended bringing the item back
to the Planning Board for review at the December 4, 2013 meeting and return a recommendation in
time for the February 18, 2014 regular BOCC meeting.
3
34
December and January Planning Board
Following the November Quarterly Public Hearing, the amendment was brought back to the December
Planning Board meeting in order to discuss concerns raised by the BOCC and Planning Board. At this
time, staff discussed revisions to the proposed amendment in regards to allowing previously
unpermitted uses, including plumbing, electrical, and building contracting, to be allowed to operate in a
residential district with an approved home occupation permit. Additionally, during this meeting the
Board and staff discussed concerns with screening standards and negative visual impacts that may result
from revising existing language. Comments received by the Planning Board were addressed within the
amendment by allowing previously unpermitted uses to operate as a home occupation and providing a
waiver from screening requirements with existing vegetation and /or increased setbacks.
At the January 8, 2014 Planning Board meeting, Board members reviewed the revised standards based on
comments received at the November Quarterly Public Hearing and the December 4, 2013 Planning Board
meeting. Members voted 7 -1 to recommend approval of the UDO text amendment as presented by staff.
Comments received from the dissenting Board member during this meeting were in regards to the existing
permit fee, enforcement, and the proposed amendment limiting economic development in the county.
February 18, 2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
The proposed amendment was presented for adoption consideration at the February 18, 2014 BOCC
meeting. During discussion, Board members stated concerns with standards contained within the
proposed amendment. One item of concern included screening standards required for accessory
structures utilized in a home occupation. This standard is currently existing in the UDO and required for
all home occupations in the county. Board members stated that this standard may create an economic
hardship for residents wishing to pursue a home occupation and questioned the need of the standard
when existing language requires accessory structures to be built with residential construction materials.
Members also questioned the fairness and necessity of this standard since residential accessory
structures in general do not require screening and some benign home based businesses (i.e.
accountant's office) would not create a substantial impact to adjacent properties requiring screening.
The second item of concern highlighted by the BOCC focused on setback standards for accessory
structures utilized in a major home occupation. Board members stated that the increased setbacks for
an accessory structure in a major home occupation may be difficult for residents to meet, which may
limit their opportunity to construct and utilize an accessory structure as part of their home occupation.
In addition, Board members questioned the fairness and necessity of this standard since residential
accessory structures in general are not required to meet increased setbacks beyond the zoning district's
principal setbacks.
A final item of concern recognized by the BOCC was in regards to the setback standards allowing for a
waiver from screening requirements for an accessory structure utilized in a minor or major home
occupation. Concerns raised by Board members recommended a decrease in these standards since the
proposed setbacks may be too great for some residents to meet and qualify for a waiver from screening
requirements.
During the meeting, individual Board members identified concerns with the standards for being too
limiting and questioned their need and fairness, however, other Board members recognized the need
and importance of the existing and proposed standards due to the expansion of home occupation uses
in residential districts.
0
BOCC Motion
35
Following review and discussion, the BOCC voted to send the proposed amendment back to the
Planning Board and staff for further review and consideration of their comments concerning setback and
screening requirements for accessory structures utilized in a home occupation. Comments received
from the Board highlighted their concerns with these standards and included recommendations for
possible revisions to the proposed amendment including a complete elimination of existing and
proposed screening requirements for accessory structures utilized in a minor and /or major home
occupation, a reduction of the proposed setback standard to qualify for a waiver from screening
requirements, and a reduction or elimination of the proposed setback standards for accessory structures
utilized in a major home occupation. Other comments received from the BOCC recommended reviewing
setback and screening requirements based on the proposed use to be conducted in the home
occupation. Additionally, the BOCC recommended the Planning Board to review and discuss potential
impacts resulting from the operation of trade uses in a residential district and to create standards
addressing these impacts.
Planning Staff Response
Based on the initial goal of creating a reasonable balance between supporting home based businesses
and protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods, planning staff supports the
existing and proposed standards contained within the amendment, as approved by the Planning Board
in January. These standards mitigate negative impacts that may result from the expansion of accessory
structures utilized in a home occupation and the permitting of more intensive uses operating in a
residential district with an approved home occupation permit. The majority of residential districts are
intended for primarily residential uses. Due to the purpose of these districts, it is imperative to provide
standards that assist in protecting the majority, residential uses, from the minority, nonresidential uses
including home based businesses, within residential districts. Historically throughout the nation, home
occupations have been intended to be minor aspects of a residential parcel, not full -blown commercial
enterprises situated in residential areas. If adopted, the amendments as proposed in February, would be
among the most lenient home occupations standards planning staff has seen and would permit much
more intensive home occupations than any of the nearby jurisdictions (Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Durham
County, and Chatham County).
Planning staff believes the BOCC's suggested modifications to existing and proposed standards could
result in significant negative impacts to neighboring residential uses. Due to the secondary,
nonresidential use that is being conducted, accessory structures utilized in a home occupation require
necessary standards to mitigate /reduce negative impacts when compared to accessory structures that
are utilized for strictly residential purposes. Reducing or eliminating setback standards or eliminating
screening requirements can increase noise, light, odor, and visual impacts from the accessory structure
to adjacent residential properties and negatively alter the primary and intended use of the residential
zoning district. Eliminating or reducing these standards could create a conflict of uses and disharmony in
a residential zoning district and would not allow for an equal balance between expanding home based
businesses while protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhood.
Planning staff understand that some residential uses can produce noise, traffic, and other impacts,
depending upon the family living in the residence (e.g. children may make noise, dogs may bark,
teenagers may have many friends over at one time, and people may host parties). However, these types
of impacts have historically been considered residential in nature. When a home based business
potentially causes impacts, the impacts are no longer considered "usual and customary" to a residence
9
36
and mitigation measures are appropriate and called for. It is customary in development regulations to
require mitigation of potential negative impacts, even if providing those mitigation measures requires
an outlay of capital. It is understood by many people that capital costs are normally a part of starting a
business.
Comments received by the BOCC stated concerns with the proposed setback and screening waiver
requirements being too great for property owners to meet and may limit the amount of developable
area on their piece of property to construct an accessory structure. The attachments following this
narrative depict the proposed setback standards for a minor and major home occupation on a variety of
sample real -life parcels in Orange County.
Attachments 1 to 3 demonstrate the setback standards currently in place and proposed for an accessory
structure utilized in a minor home occupation. Additionally, Attachments 4 to 6 depict the 40 foot
setback standard required on tracts approximately one (1) to twelve (12) acres in size if a screening
waiver is requested because appropriate screening is not provided onsite. The attachments show the
large portion of the property that is still developable with these setback standards in place.
Attachments 7 and S depict the forty (40) foot setback standard proposed for an accessory structure
utilized in a major home occupation on tracts approximately five (5) to twelve (12) acres in size. The
attachments illustrate the large portion of the property that is still developable with these setback
standards in place. In addition, Attachments 9 and 10 depict the proposed setback standards required
for accessory on tracts approximately five (5) to twelve (12) acres in size if a screening waiver is
requested because appropriate screening is not provided onsite. While the requirements can be limiting
depending on the shape of the parcel, the proposed setback standards are very unlikely to completely
restrict the construction of an accessory structure on site. In any instances where a hardship exists due
to the shape of the parcel or other reason, the variance process is available to property owners to
pursue alternative standards.
A final comment received from the BOCC recommended the need to review setback and screening
standards based on the proposed use to be conducted in the home occupation. While this is a
recommendation the Planning Board can review and discuss, it is important to note that proposed
standards have become more comprehensive providing for greater options for different home based
businesses. The amendment may be lengthened to include standards based on the specific use to be
conducted in the home occupation. However, it is important to consider that similar home based
businesses conducting the same use can have varying impacts depending on size, number of employees,
visitors, client base, and production.
In regards to the BOCC comment regarding potential impacts from the operation of trade uses as a
home occupation, planning staff believes the standards, as currently written, will provide sufficient
protection to neighbors of such uses. However, if the existing and proposed setback and screening
requirements are changed, taking another look at impacts of certain potential home occupations uses
would be warranted.
The amendment provides the means to limit conflict and impacts while providing a sufficient balance
between expanding the opportunity for home based businesses to operate in residential districts and
protecting the residential character of neighborhoods. Without the existing and proposed regulations,
an imbalance may create conflict and disharmony within a residential district. These issues may then
lead to complaints and enforcement issues that cannot be mediated without standards in place to
enforce. Unfortunately, similar to many standards, situations may arise that cannot meet the
A
37
regulations in place. However, those cases that are not able to meet standards or are exceeding home
occupation regulations may apply for a conditional use permit or variance request or relocate to a
commercial zoning district located in the county.
Benefits
The existing and proposed standards contained within the UDO and text amendment provide for a
number of benefits. As previously stated, the introduction of new uses previously not permitted as
home occupations and the expansion of larger scale home occupations will create the opportunity for
greater impacts to neighborhoods and residential districts than currently experienced in the county.
Maintaining screening requirements and increased setback standards for accessory structures will allow
for potential impacts to be mitigated and reduce negative effects to adjacent property owners from
noise, light, odor, or visual impacts. These standards will help to address conflicts that may arise from
the permitting of an incidental or secondary nonresidential use to operate in an accessory structure in a
district primarily intended for residential purposes. With the County's role in allowing new uses and
expansion of home base business operations in residential districts, it is necessary to create standards
that will not result in negative impacts, create conflicts, or loss of residential character.
The existing and proposed standards ease regulations to provide for an expansion of home occupations
to support home based businesses in the county, but also provide a safeguard system protecting the
residential character of neighborhoods. In the end, planning staff believes that the existing and
proposed standards successfully create a reasonable balance between supporting home based
businesses and protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods.
Summary
The existing language contained within the UDO and the proposed standards relating to accessory
structure setbacks and screening are an essential component to the proposed home occupation text
amendment in order to reduce negative impacts and protect the residential character of neighborhoods.
By revising the existing and proposed standards, the County may create greater impacts to residential
districts and conflicting land uses within a district primarily designed for residential purposes. These
impacts can result in increased conflict of uses and enforcement issues dependent on the effects the
new permitted uses and larger scale home occupations may have on adjacent properties. Proposed
standards are providing greater opportunities for home based businesses by allowing for larger
accessory structures and new uses that were previously not permitted as home occupations such as
plumbing, electrical, and building contracting. In order to facilitate the original goal of balance,
regulations contained within the UDO and the proposed amendment, addressing setbacks and screening
of accessory structures utilized in a home occupation, are necessary to keep these uses in check and
mitigate any negative effects resulting from expanded home occupation operations. As a result,
planning staff supports the need to remain consistent with existing standards contained in the UDO
regarding screening and proposed standards contained in the text amendment recommended for
approval by the Planning Board regarding setbacks.
7
1 acre parcel
Off of Leslie Drive
150 ft. of road frontage
Minor Home Occupation: with appropriate landscaping providing
buffer per proposed language in Section 5.5.3 (A) (2) (b) (ii).
20 ft. setback can be observed as appropriate buffer available at
property line to screen accessory building.
MD—i_a —ILA... Target 18
7.Z.
L r w��n�g eoeeaa�,
City L,mils
ETJ
20101mag-
RGB
M", — 1
W— eem z
I
Attachment 1 1 38
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n
I �
� 1
I ,
NC54W i o
I ,
g
` 1 inch = 50 feet
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
03/18/2014
Attachment 2 39
® BuRer_o! Default_Annotation_Target_10 &�,�a n'
Parcels ' V 1 inch = 178 feet
^, j Township Boundary c
® ETJLimits
ETJ j. 1 0
2010 Images 9
RGB Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
- Red Band _1 03/18/2014
- Green BarW_2
Attachment 3 40
Buffer_of Default_Annotation_Target_12
0 Parcels
=Township Boundary
• City Limits
ETJ
2010 Images
RGB
® Red Band _1
MG—en Band-2
10
v 1 inch = 198 feet
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
04/10/2014
Attachment 4 41
1 acre parcel
Off of Leslie Drive
150 ft. of road frontage ! i
oc
Minor Home Occupation: with out appropriate landscaping providing �s 70 W 2
buffer per proposed language in Section 5.5.3 (A) (2) (b) (ii). /8ss
40 ft. setback has to be observed as appropriate buffer is not
0 1
available at property line to screen accessory building. ! m
LESLIE DR ! NC 5a w o
IM-1
®BUne._m_oeraw� auaomr a_Ta�ei as
M-1
1
Tow.. hip Boundary
Llry Limits
ETJ
7Dt01mages
RGB
W1- -"—
t
mr — Bam z
Biue Bard a
Z
Y � 70,ft�wldth
x
,m can be used
fr
%2
a F
11
yp¢4
7/3R3 1 inch= 50 feet
Orange County 4Planning and Inspections Department
03/18/2014
5 acre parcel
Off of Ferguson Road. Lot io1QQ feet inwidth.
Minor Home Occupation: where there io not adequate landscaping
per Section 5.5.3 (A) (2) (b) (iii).
40 ft setback has hobe observed oo appropriate buffer ianot
available at property line to screen accessory building
setback
parcete
T—nship Boundary
M Cty Unnft
ETJ
2010 Images
xoa
Red BarcL_1
i M1
12
f�
�I se�ba��-j
, inch= ,mfeet
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
12 acre parcel
Off of Buckhorn Road.
Minor Home Occupation: without appropriate landscaping providing
buffer per proposed language in Section 5.5.3 (A) (2) (b) (iii).
40 ft. setback has to be observed where appropriate buffer
is not available at property line to screen accessory building.
Attachment 6 43
----------- - - - - -;
� I
i
/'0 VV
l I
i /8SS l
J °
,I
m
NC54W �o
Q Parcels
Township Boundary
-,. City Limits
ETJ
2010 images
RGB
® Red Band-1
Green Band_2
13
1 inch = 198 feet
Orange County FFFPlanning and Inspections Department
04/10/2014
FAVA
- Buffer _of_ Default _Annotation _Target_1I
Parceis a ea 1 inch = 178 feet
jTownship 80untlary
city Limb 0
ETJ a ° ^a s I
2010 Images 14
RGB Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
=Red Band _1 03118/2014
® Green Band _2
12 acre parcel
Off of Buckhorn Road.
Major Home Occupation: with appropriate landscaping providing
buffer per proposed language in Section 5.5.3 (A) (2) (c) (iii).
40 ft. setback is the minium setback required with landscaping
Attachment 8 45
A2)
<�1,
Z
IS "5 W
/ess
o I
m
1-
NC54W o
I
�O I
s �%
® Buffer of Default_ Annotation_Target_26
Buffer_of Default_Annotation_Target_14
Q Parcels
L_J Township Boundary
City Limits
ETJ
2010 Images
RGB
=Red Bantl_t
=Green Band L2
15
u 1 inch= 198 feet
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
04/10/2014
5 acre parcel
Off of Ferguson Road. Lot is 199 feet in width.
Major Home Occupation: where there is not adequate landscaping
per Section 5.5.3 (A) (2) (c) (iii).
80 ft setback has to be observed where appropriate buffer
is not available at property line to screen accessory building.
Attachment 9 46
I
r
- Buffer_of Oefault_Mnotatior_Target_17
Q Parcels
J Township Boundary
City Limits
ETJ
2010 Images
RGB
® Red Band _1
- Green Band_2
r.
16
1 inch= 178 feet
O
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
03/18/2014
- auHer_of_Deram� Mm�afwn_Targer_27
aurter_af_Deraull_Mnotalun Target 15 g"�
1 inch = 198 feet
r� T w hip E—dary �-
,City Limits
ETJ Q
20101 —ges 1° t
RGS 17
M— band 1
®o,eea —d z Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
®awe eanaa 04/10/2014
Excerpt of Minutes I JAttachrnenF5]
APPROVED 1/23/2014
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
November 25, 2013
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, November 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS
Office, Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Earl McKee
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the
Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, and Planning Board
members Maxecine Mitchell, Lisa Stuckey, Paul Guthrie, Herman Staats, Tony Blake, Andrea
Rohrbacher, and H.T. "Buddy" Hartley
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, James Lea, Stephanie O'Rouke
Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck had no opening remarks
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment —To review government
initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to change the existing
standards for home occupations, modify and clarify existing regulations and definitions
associated with home occupations, and allow for the exemption of special events organized or
affiliated with a governmental or non - profit agency. The amendments also seek to find a balance
between the trends for small home based businesses and the typical character and enjoyment of
residential neighborhoods.
Ashley Moncado introduced this item and reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
Unified Development Ordinance
Text Amendment
Home Occupation Standards
Quarterly Public Hearing
November 25, 2013
Item C1
M9
Purpose
To hold a public hearing on a Planning Board and Planning Director initiated Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment regarding existing home occupation standards
contained within the UDO. The amendment also involves the renumbering and reformatting of
Sections 2.22, 5.4.3, and 5.5.3_
Background
• UDO Implementation Bridge report
— Prepared in 2011 with the adoption of the UDO
• Planning Board's Areas of Interest
— January 9, 2013 Planning Board meeting
• Board of County Commissioners
— February 21, 2013 BOCC Retreat
— May 14, 2013 BOCC Work Session
Existing Home Occupation Standards
• Identified Concerns and Issues
— Standards are too limiting regarding:
• Permitted number of employees
• Square footage allowances
• Permitted daily trip counts
— Standards do not address permitting events
• Orange County Open Studio Tour
— Standards may be restricting the art community and operation of individual art
studios
Strive to create a reasonable balance between supporting home based businesses and
protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods
- Home Occupations /Neighbors
* Proposed uses exceeding home occupation regulations may apply for a conditional use permit
or relocate to a commercial zoning district
Planning Board
• July 10 Planning Board Meeting
— Presentation of current standards and other local jurisdictions' standards
• September 4 Planning Board Meeting
— Review of draft language and Section 419, Live/Work Units
• October 2 Ordinance Review Committee
— Presentation and review of draft amendments
• October 16 Staff Meeting with the Planning Board Chair
— Review of the Planning Board's recommendations
• November 2 Ordinance Review Committee
— Presentation and review of amendments
Proposed Amendments
• Proposed Revisions to:
— Section 2.22, Home Occupations
— Section 5.4.3, Special Events
— Section 5.5.3, Home Occupations
— Article 10, Definitions
• Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format with explanatory
footnotes as needed
• Renumbering and reformatting of identified Sections
Proposed Amendments
• Development of Two Home Occupation Categories
— Minor
— Major
• Minor Home Occupations
— Staff review and approval
— Permitted in all residential zoning districts
— Increase in square footage threshold for residential dwelling units
— Increase in square footage for accessory structures
— Increase in number of onsite employees
— Allow for an increase in the daily number of clients, customers, and students
— Revised definition
Proposed Amendments
• Major Home Occupations
— Require a Class B Special Use Permit
— Only permitted in the AR (Agricultural Residential) and R -1 (Rural Residential)
zoning districts
— Must be located on a parcel at least five acres in size
— Square footage threshold for residential dwelling units and number of onsite
employees determined by the approved Special Use Permit
— Size of accessory structures based on acreage
— Allow for daily number of clients, customers, and students
— Require a private road maintenance agreement or driveway permit
— Proposed definition
— Proposed Amendments
• All Home Occupations
— Removal of the daily trip maximum and delivery cap
— Modification in measuring the weight of vehicles used in conjunction with the
home occupation
— Address reviewing and permitting of special events
• Revisions to Section 5.4.3, Special Events
— Allow for events planned, conducted, and affiliated with a non
profit or government organization to be exempt from the Special
Event and Class B SUP review process
Addressing Concerns and Issues
Existing Standards
Concern: Current standards are too limiting regarding:
- Permitted number of employees
- Square footage allowances
- Permitted daily trip counts
Proposed Standards
- Allow for increase in number of onsite employees.
51
Allow for increase in square footage allowances for residential dwelling units and
accessory structures
Removal of the daily trip maximum and delivery cap
Modification in the permitted weight of vehicles used in conjunction with the home
occupation
Existing Standards
Concern: Current standards do not address the permitting of special events including the
Orange County Open Studio Tour
Proposed Standards
- Allow for the review and permitting of events through Section 5.4.3, Special Events
- Allow for the exemption of nonprofit or government organized events from the special
event and Class B Special Use Permit review process
Existing Standards
Concern: Standards may be restricting the art community and operation of individual art studios
Proposed Standards
Provide the capacity to support and accommodate individual art studios
- Development of a larger (major) home occupation category
- Increase in square footage allowances, number of onsite employees, daily trip counts,
visitors, and deliveries,
- Address the permitting of special events
Public Notification
Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
- Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
Joint Planning Area Partners
Proposed amendments provided on November 7, 2013
- No comments have been received.
Recommendation
• To receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance.
• Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
the proposed amendment.
• Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the January 23, 2014 BOCC
regular meeting.
• Adjourn the public hearing until January 23, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Ashley Moncado said the two different categories are defined as follows:
Minor- Smaller scale home -based business operations in the residential neighborhood
setting on smaller lots
Major- Larger home -based business operations in the rural /residential setting on larger tracts
Ashley Moncado said the minor home occupations will allow a square footage increase
from 500 to 750 square feet, and accessory structures will be allowed an increase from 1000
square feet to 1500 square feet.
52
She said the permitted non - resident employees will increase from 2 to 3, and the
permitted visitors will increase to 3 at one time, not to exceed 6 per day.
Ashley Moncado said major home occupations will allow for up to 50 percent of the
residential dwelling to be used toward the home occupation and will allow up to 6 non - resident
employees on site.
She said accessory structures will be permitted up to 2500 square feet on tracts 5 to 10
acres in size, and up to 3000 square feet on tracts 11 acres or more.
She said standards for the major home occupations will allow for 8 visitors at one time,
not exceeding 15 per day.
Ashley Moncado noted that the load capacity standard for vehicles will be changed to a
gross vehicle weight, and the revised standards will accommodate the use of standard and
larger sized pickup trucks.
Andrea Rohrabacher arrived at 7:10 pm.
Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck invited questions from the Board.
Commissioner Gordon asked where section 419 of the building code is located.
Ashley Moncado said the reference to this is located at the end of the amendment form.
Commissioner Gordon said she is looking for the actual section.
Ashley Moncado said this was not included.
(Michael Harvey made copies of the missing document and distributed this to the
Commissioners and the Planning Board.)
Commissioner Pelissier referred to the standards of evaluation on page 15. She noted
the uses not permitted and the wording in section B regarding the standards of evaluation. She
asked if it was possible for some of the non - permitted uses to actually meet the standards of
evaluation.
She cited the example of a plumber who once resided in her neighborhood, but was not
disruptive. She asked if standards of evaluation could be used, with no automatic non - permitted
uses.
Ashley Moncado said this was a topic at the last planning board meeting. She said this
language was in the UDO to prevent the possibility of a resident using their property as a main
center and having too much storage or warehousing on site, or creating increased traffic count.
She said the standards proposed tonight may be able to accommodate those uses and prevent
them from being unpermitted. She said this is a topic for further discussion.
Commissioner Rich thanked the planning department for the robust conversation. She
asked about the statement that prohibits the use of a home base for constructing or building
anything. She asked if constructing bookcases for a client in a garage shop would be
considered building something in a home based business.
Ashley Moncado said she did not believe this was prohibited in the UDO. She said there
were concerns for operating a building construction contracting business out of the home. She
said if someone came forward wanting to build furniture, this would be allowed if the resident
met the regulations and did not exceed outdoor storage space or other standards.
Commissioner Price referred to the chart on page 2. She noted that the second blue
box, under standards of evaluation says "body shop, hauling, and building."
Ashley Moncado said this is just a general comment as part of a summary chart to use in
referencing the amendments in attachment 2.
Commissioner Price asked if these standards are for the rural buffer or the rural area in
general. She said some of the standards are very restrictive and would not matter in a rural
area. She questioned whether this might hurt rural people, rather than help them in the effort to
open a home business.
53
Ashley Moncado said the major home occupations would not be permitted in the rural
buffer, only in the AR and R1 zoning districts. She said the major home occupations language
was modeled after language currently used for minor home occupation. She said the standards
for landscaping are currently in place with all home occupations in the UDO.
Ashley Moncado referred back to the slide showing the balancing act of allowing and
promoting the home based business while protecting neighbors and the rural residential
character.
Commissioner Price said the neighbors in a rural area may be 2 miles down the road.
She said this language seems to make life more difficult rather than easier.
She asked about the farm tour and whether this would be exempt like the arts tour.
Ashley Moncado said the farm tour would be considered agri- tourism, which would allow
it to be exempt from the special event process.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if plumbing contracting is prohibited, and he asked what
this means. He said it seems that the office portion of a home based plumbing business would
be within the description of permitted occupations. He asked for clarification on what is
prohibited by the contracting language.
Michael Harvey said the purpose of the prohibition is to prevent creation of a bone yard
in residential districts. He said this happens when you have storage of materials, and
employees continually travel back and forth from the home site to pick up materials and vehicles
for a job. He said this policy prohibits mass storage of plumbing supplies and equipment. He
said he has personally allowed plumbing businesses to have a home office. He said this policy
is not being modified with this proposal.
Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarifications about home daycares. He said there are
some people who provide daycare in their home, but it is not a formal business.
Michael Harvey said there are several different categories of daycare, and there are
different permitting processes associated with those activities depending on the number of
children. He said anyone wishing to run a home daycare must fill out a zoning compliance
permit with the County planning department. He said a floor plan must be provided to show
where the children would be located, and documentation must be provided to show the
existence of the necessary outdoor play area of 75 square feet per child.
Michael Harvey said planning then coordinates with the health department to insure
there is adequate septic to support the activity, and then a permit is issued. He said this is not
treated as a home occupation; it is a listed permitted use of property, or a special use.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if this would be true for a daycare with three students or
less.
Michael Harvey said the process would still have to be followed.
Chair Jacobs followed up on the question regarding farm tours. He said his
interpretation of page 5 is that any non - profit is exempt.
Ashley Moncado said this is correct.
Chair Jacobs asked about the use of accessory structures and the requirement for these
buildings to look like a residential structure. He said that barns do not look like a residential
structures and may be located half a mile from the nearest neighbor. He asked if the strict
appearance and landscape requirements would apply even to this.
Ashley Moncado said, based on this proposal, yes. She said those issues were not
previously highlighted as a concern; therefore they were not addressed with the planning board.
Commissioner Gordon referred to page 15 - 2A and 2. She asked if a home occupation
permit is required for a minor home occupation.
Ashley Moncado said yes.
Commissioner Gordon noted that some occupations are exempt. She asked if an event
can be done without a permit.
54
Ashley Moncado said the highlighted item related to a telecommuting business, with no
employees or customers coming to the site. She said a resident with an exemption would be
able to take part in events through the special events process outlined in section 5.4.3.
Commissioner Gordon asked if this means there is no direct tie to having a home
occupation permit and having an event.
Ashley Moncado said these are two separate things. She said there is currently no
language in the UDO that specifies the means for holding an event. She said that language is
now being provided, stating the events will be permitted for home occupations through section
5.4.3. She said someone with an exemption from the home occupation process, would still be
able to go through and get a special event permit through this process.
Commissioner Gordon said there would be no knowledge of whether the person had the
parking or necessary requirements.
Ashley Moncado said there are size, structure and parking requirements that have to be
met as part of the special event review process.
Commissioner Gordon asked how non - profits are defined.
Ashley Moncado said perhaps language needs to be added to reference non - profit
status. She said the goal of non - profit exemptions is to allow community events that highlight
the community or provide a service to the County.
Commissioner Gordon said language needs to be included to capture the required spirit
of the non - profit.
Commissioner Price referred to page 16 and asked how the number of daily students
and clients will be enforced.
Michael Harvey said special use permits will be issued and recorded at the register of
deeds office. He said this requires the applicants to sign off on the design parameters. He said
this will be a mutual agreement, and the permit can be revoked if it is violated.
Commissioner Dorosin said this is complaint driven.
Michael Harvey said it is complaint driven, but County staff also does periodic
inspections.
Chair Jacobs asked if it is possible to differentiate between the 501 c3 and other non-
profits.
Ashley Moncado said this can be looked into.
Commissioner Pelissier asked about the buffers and the required screening of accessory
structures, as listed on page 17. She said residences that don't have a business do not have to
screen accessory structures.
Michael Harvey said that a single family residence does not have to establish a buffer to
shield or separate an accessory structure. He said the fact that the property will have non-
residential use means a buffer is required to insure that the non - residential use of that structure
does not have a negative impact on adjacent property owners. He said staff does not feel that
there should be an alteration of the current landscaping and screening requirements, as it
serves a purpose and is warranted, given the non - residential use of the structure.
Commissioner Rich asked for examples of the minor uses that have been discussed with
the planning board.
Planning Board member Tony Blake said this list included journalists, accountants, real
estate agents, and piano teachers.
Pete Hallenbeck said this started with what might be called professional services, such
as lawyers, architects, or consulting engineers. He said it came down to the traffic coming into
the house. He said clients for these businesses may show up and not come back for several
days, versus a home business where there may be 8 appointments a day. He said a lot of the
discussions were driven by the impact of what you would see and hear, and how much traffic is
generated.
55
Commissioner Price asked how this will affect farm based businesses, for example
someone making jam to sell on the roadside.
Perdita Holtz said businesses located on a bonafide farm, making a value added product
are exempt from zoning regulations. She said if it is not a bonafide farm, such as a person
making jam in their home kitchen, environmental health permits would be required. She said
this would be a home based business that requires a permit.
Commissioner Price asked if this means the person would still be able to sell in front of their
home.
Perdita Holtz said a home occupation would not be able to sell in front of their house.
Commissioner Price referred to the traffic issue. She said her tax accountant works out
of his home and has people drop taxes at his house. She said her neighbor generated more
traffic from teenage boys and their friends coming and going than the tax collector generates
from the business. She said she does not understand how traffic can differentiate.
Ashley Moncado said that can be a hard thing to regulate. She said the original
numbers were much greater than those being submitted tonight. She said charts were created
to show average trips. She said the original numbers proposed gave a number of upwards of
160 trips per day resulting from a major home occupation. She said this is based on a worst
case scenario of employees taking lunches, or a parent bringing children back and forth to piano
lessons.
Ashley Moncado said those traffic counts were why the recommendations were reduced,
in order to bring the counts down a little. She said an average single family residential unit will
create 4 -20 trips per day. She said the recommendations provided tonight go above that range
to accommodate for family and business trips. She said the goal is to keep it in the appropriate
range for a single family residential home.
Commissioner Gordon read the statement about creating a reasonable balance between
the home occupations and protecting the character of residential neighborhoods. She referred
to page 7 and asked why this says home occupations would be promoted and encouraged.
She gave the following alternative wording: "appropriate balance between supporting home
based business and protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods."
Ashley Moncado said the planning board's goal has been to promote home based
businesses. She said the one sentence focuses on one side of it; however the goal is to focus
on providing opportunities for residents to have a different means to conduct business through
their home, but it also important to protect the character of residential neighborhoods.
Commissioner Gordon said use of the words promote and encourage, does not sound
like a balance.
Ashley Moncado said this comes from the original goal. She said that one sentence
does not encompass all of this.
Commissioner Dorosin said it has been out of balance in the other direction, and now
the goal is to balance it by promoting home businesses. He said the pendulum often swings
too far the other way when these kinds of corrections are made.
Commissioner Rich noted that no one from the public was in attendance. She asked if
any input or comment was made at previous meetings or through emails.
Tony Blake said staff and board members spoke with neighbors and drew from personal
experiences. He feels these businesses are an underappreciated part of the economy.
Pete Hallenbeck said there were no comments from the public. He said most of the
planning board does some aspect of their work from their home.
Tony Blake said he works for a corporation from home office, and he is exempt; however
many of his neighbors do work from home businesses.
Commissioner Rich said many people today use their home to telecommute.
56
Tony Blake said that situation is exempt. He said the new technology makes this
possible. He said margins have been cut because of the economy, and there is a lot of need
and demand for this.
Commissioner Gordon said she has comments.
Pete Hallenbeck asked if there were any other questions before moving on to
comments.
Commissioner Gordon said that much of this discussion is about the difference between
major and minor home occupations and the smaller lots and residential areas versus the larger
lots and rural areas. She said there is a lot of discussion about what kind of impact there will be.
She said maybe the primary focus for ordinance changes should be made in the major home
occupations that involve a special use permit, because special conditions can then be
accounted for.
She said she has been looking at some of the proposed changes for minor home
occupations and the large size of the accessory structures. She said these structures are
bigger than some houses. She feels there should be some kind of permitting process before
getting into these bigger impacts. She feels the 500 -700 square feet for the minor category is
fine, but she questions going above 1000 square feet or 2 employees for the minor home
occupations.
Commissioner Gordon said people on small lots are more affected by what neighbors
do. She said the difference between neighbors creating a lot of impact is whether they are
making any money. She said if money is being made; but your peace and tranquility is being
compromised and your property values go down, then the balance has been exceeded.
She feels that it would be better to make increases and changes in the major home
occupations versus the minor. She said if you are on 25 acres, the business is in the middle of
the property, and there is plenty of area for parking, no one is going to be bothered.
She feels the minor home occupation category needs to be kept as is, and the changes
should be made only to the major.
Commissioner Gordon said it is good to help the artists and photographers who are just
doing work at their place. She said this is very different from someone having noise, odors,
impact or storage issues that interfere with residential character.
Commissioner Dorosin said this needs to be thought of as economic development. He
said economic development is not just about luring big businesses to come here. He said it is
also about supporting home grown entrepreneurship and individual small business that can
grow and become successful.
He said the lot size and homeowners association have to allow for the building of a 1500
square foot accessory building. He said the purpose here is to control the impacts, such as
noise, odor or impact, and it's not about controlling the building. He said he is encouraged by
these changes, and this should be characterized as the economic development engine that it
could be.
Commissioner Pelissier said she echoes what Commissioner Dorosin said. She said
this is a great opportunity for economic development. She feels this shows that development is
encouraged and does so in a way that is not disruptive to individual residences. She noted that
these accessory structures are required to look like a residential structure. She said the issue is
the noise and traffic; it is not about the occupation, but it is about the impact on neighbors.
Commissioner Pelissier said she does not want to make the rules so restrictive and she
would like to see some more work done on this. She questioned why a home occupation on a
major road would need 40 feet of trees or a fence for something that is not an eyesore. She
feels there needs to be some more balancing to make it less difficult for some of the home
occupations.
57
Chair Jacobs said he agrees more or less with what he has heard so far. He said he
has some different feelings about the accessory buildings. He does not care what existing
accessory buildings look like, as these are already in place and part of the neighborhood;
however he feels that new accessory buildings should be required to meet the proposed
standards.
He said the screening could be handled with set -backs that are appropriate for
residential versus rural areas. He said it is difficult with only AR, but using a setback that would
not work well in a smaller residential area would make it easier to avoid screening. He said a
setback of 500 feet would obviously not be used on a smaller 1 acre lot, and the noise and light
would not really impact neighbors, whereas a setback of 50 feet might allow disturbance. He
said this might be a way to address the rural versus suburban areas.
Commissioner Price said these she has found some of these proposals to be too
restrictive. She said asking a homeowner who is trying to make a living with a home based
occupation to put in fences, landscaping and certain trees is a financial challenge. She said this
is going overboard.
She said small businesses are a big part of the economic development scheme and
should be encouraged. She understands the need to save the rural character, but she also
wants to be fair to residents in the rural area.
Commissioner Price said she also thinks the language could be edited to be a little
simpler.
Commissioner Rich said she is encouraged by this. She wonders how much of a live
document this is. She questioned the steps to modify this if it is put in place and then
adjustments need to be made.
Ashley Moncado said modifications can be made if neighbors complain, and this would
be done using the protocol for proposing a text amendment.
Commissioner Rich asked if this would be true in the case of needing to give more
leeway.
Ashley Moncado said yes, it would be open for examination by staff and the planning
board.
Commissioner Rich asked if this would come about through public input.
Ashley Moncado said yes.
Commissioner Gordon said the goal is to create a balance. She said most of the issues
could be addressed by making the changes to the major home occupations category and not
making changes to the minor occupations. She said this allows things to be tailored through the
special use permit process. She said this is not losing too much and it directs the intense
development to the larger lots sizes in rural areas.
She said this is about putting non - residential uses in residential areas, and the character
of the residential areas needs to be considered.
Chair Jacobs said he does not disagree with much of what Commissioner Gordon has
said; however he questions the existing standards for minor. He said the accessory structure
screening is in there now, and he feels this should be more a function of the lot size than a
blanket requirement. He is proposing a change to this.
Tony Blake said the goal in the original conversation was to align with Chapel Hill.
Ashley Moncado said Chapel Hill currently allows 35 percent of the floor area, or 750
square feet, which is in line with the increase.
Pete Hallenbeck said the concept of character comes back to what you can see, hear,
and smell, as well as the traffic involved. He said those are the things being addressed when
balance is discussed. He said the example of teenage traffic activity may be more acceptable
to residents because is an occurrence for only a finite amount of time.
W
He said there are many limits being played with in the effort to preserve character, such
as size of structures, number of visits and size of trucks. He said there are many opinions, and
there have been many discussions. He said the changes to the minor uses were designed to
bring the various municipal and rural rules a little closer to the municipality rules.
Pete Hallenbeck said the size limits are interesting because there are two different kinds
of rural character; one is where you have a farm with the normal and expected traffic and noise,
and the other is a big lot residential community where no one wants that farm experience. He
said this makes many of these decisions hard.
He referred to the plumbing example and said no one had a problem if a plumber simply
owned a truck or two at their house. He said there is a point however, where the business
would be big enough that it should be moved to an office park like Millstone Drive.
Pete Hallenbeck said he likes the idea of changing the goal of the document from
promoting business to promoting a balance between business and residential. He said that
wording will help people make better decisions for this living document in the future.
He said the other thing that everyone is wrestling with is balancing the impact more than
restricting certain occupations. He likes the idea of screening and setbacks, and he said
perhaps the planning board can look at this. He said perhaps a building that is 500 feet from
the property would not need shrubbery.
Pete Hallenbeck said he has 1500 square feet of work space over the garage and 1000
square feet in his basement, both used for different types of projects. He shares this as an
example of that balancing act of putting a limit on square footage, putting a limit on the activities,
or putting a limit on what can be seen, heard, or smelled, as well as the traffic count.
Lisa Stuckey thinks it makes more sense to get rid of the language on page 15 regarding
the building businesses. She feels the language should focus more on the visual impact of the
businesses. She thinks these home businesses should be invisible to neighbors
Paul Guthrie said he has had some questions, as reflected in the minutes. He said he
has been skeptical, not of the concept, but of the specificity of the language. He said one
example is the provision for barriers and buffers, which requires an 80 foot space between
activities and neighbors. He said this is over half an acre and, coupled with other issues, puts a
real barrier on people who want to operate on their own property.
He said ever time he reads this document he sees a new issue, and this tells him this
process needs to be carefully considered. He said this can be accommodated with a
reasonable degree of judicial flexibility, so as not to impede people's ability to make a living_
Paul Guthrie said this is just part of the working life today. He said 50 percent of his
neighbors have been involved in a home business of some sort, and he has a daughter who
telecommutes from London. He said this is symbolic of the new world we live in, and it must be
thought through in coming to a final conclusion on this issue.
Maxecine Mitchell said she would like to address Commissioner Rich's question about
public input. She said she is an average person, and she may start a home business. She
does not want all of these restrictions so that she would potentially have to move out if the
business did well. She also does not want to discourage other people from creating a business.
Ashley Moncado proposed a revision to the recommendation. She requested this be
brought back to the February 18I" meeting, in order to allow time to work with the planning board
to address the concerns highlighted tonight.
Chair Jacobs said this seems more practical_
A motion was made by Renee Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich:
• To receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance.
• Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
the proposed amendment.
-*61
• Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 18, 2014 BOCC
regular meeting.
• Adjourn the public hearing until February 18, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Jacobs asked if there is a list of the people who have home occupation permits.
He asked if these people can be notified that an ordinance is being considered. He said the
public hearing is adjourned, but perhaps these residents could attend the planning board
meeting. He said it might be smart to anticipate the comments that could come after changes
are made.
Michael Harvey said any additional comments would need to be in writing, since the
public hearing is closed.
Chair Jacobs suggested sending post cards to notify residents of what is happening and
directing them to a web address for submission of written comments. He said he recognizes
that there may be thousands of these people.
Ashley Moncado said staff will have to look at what resources are in place to be able to
do this.
Commissioner Gordon said she thinks this letter is a good idea.
2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment —To review government -
ini ed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to incorporate recent
change State law with respect to the review and processing of applications proposin e
devel00me r modification of telecommunication facilities.
Michael Hary aid this item begins on page 39 of the abstract. H aid attachment 1 is
the comprehensive plan a UDO outline form, and attachment 2 is th ctual copy of Session
law 2013 -185.
He reviewed the following S ion law criteria from p 39 of the abstract:
• Prohibition on requiring information related he ecific need for a proposed
telecommunication facility, including the addi additional wireless coverage or
capacity, as part of the application pack
• Local governments cannot require' prietary, confidentia , r other business information'
to justify the need for a new tel mmunication facility.
• Limits the fee local govern nts can collect for a third party consult to review
applications for co -loc ons.
• Mandatory revie melines /deadlines for local governments to act on co -loca applications.
Uieffael Harvey said the County has been very lucky in the past few years that AT as
bee i ling to provide data indicating existing telecommunications facilities.
He said the co- locations fee is now limited to $1,000, and the previous charge was $2500.
He said that change has already been incorporated.
AN
Attachment 6
Excerpt of Minutes
1
2 APPROVED 3/18/2014
3 MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 FEBRUARY 18, 2014
7 7:00 p.m.
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on
10 Tuesday, February 18, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in
11 Chapel Hill, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
14 Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny
15 Rich
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
17 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant
19 County Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker
20 (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
21
22 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE
23 PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
24
25 5. Public Hearings
26
27 a. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related to Home
28 Occupations — Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional
29 Comments
30 Accepted)
31 The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing
32 the public hearing, and considered a decision on a Planning Board and Planning
33 Director initiated text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
34 Ashley Moncado said the purpose is to receive the Planning Board's
35 recommendation. She said this was heard in November, and all comments were
36 addressed with modification (noted with green text). She said these text amendments
37 would not take effect until May 1 st of 2014, to provide an opportunity for planning staff
38 outreach to Orange County residents regarding the reviewing and permitting of home
39 occupations based on the revised standards.
40 Commissioner Price referred to the phrase about "suitable residential
41 construction materials." She asked if it is reasonable to put this in, considering what the
42 state has said about local municipalities and counties being able to regulate
43 appearances.
44 Ashley Moncado said there are no official standard changes based on official
45 statute. She said this is just discussion at this time, but it is on their radar and would
46 need to be addressed if those changes take place at the state level.
61
2
1 Chair Jacobs asked if it could be assumed that existing structures would be
2 treated differently than new structures.
3 Ashley Moncado said those would be grandfathered in.
4 Chair Jacobs said there had been discussion of defining non - profits as 501 -c -3.
5 He asked if this was included.
6 Ashley Moncado said this was revised and it is included on page 18. She said
7 this was not highlighted in green, but it has been included in the amendments.
8 Michael Harvey addressed Chair Jacobs earlier question. He said the non -
9 conforming section of the UDO says that any land use legally permitted, made non -
10 conforming by text amendment, can continue in its approved state until such time as its
11 use is expanded. He said if the home occupation is expanded above a certain
12 percentage, the occupant will then have to be in compliance with the code.
13 Commissioner Gordon referred to past discussions of the uses not permitted.
14 She noted that these uses are no longer prohibited. She asked for the original reason
15 for exclusion and the balancing provisions that then made them acceptable.
16 Ashley Moncado that these were always in the UDO as uses not permitted and
17 this was not a topic until the eleventh hour. She said there was then discussion to allow
18 these uses; and the planning board was willing to allow them, but there were limits put
19 in place to prevent them from being an intrusion to neighbors.
20 Commissioner Gordon asked how these changes are different for major home
21 occupations versus minor home occupations.
22 Ashley Moncado said this means less employees, less clients, smaller
23 accessory structures, lower traffic counts and less dwelling use for the minor home
24 occupations. She said the major home occupations would allow for more in each of
25 these areas.
26 Commissioner Gordon asked about the differences in outside storage
27 structures.
28 Ashley Moncado said this has remained the same, at 500 square feet for major
29 and minor. She said the traffic counts are not to exceed 20 for minor home occupations
30 and 50 for major home occupations.
31 Commissioner Gordon asked about delivery trucks.
32 Ashley Moncado said these are not counted, and there is no limit.
33 Commissioner Price asked for the rationale of 80 feet as a setback amount.
34 She asked if it was possible to go down to 60 feet.
35 Ashley Moncado said 80 feet was the minimum setback for those zoning
36 districts. She said the least amount would be 40 feet and the concern was doubling this
37 to keep that protective buffer.
38 Commissioner Price said she is concerned that this is making life more difficult
39 for those wanting to start a home business.
40 Ashley Moncado said 40 feet is the setback for the accessory structure, but the
41 80 feet is the setback to be exempt from screening requirements.
42 Commissioner Price asked if this requirement can be lessened.
43 Ashley Moncado said there is always the option for a variance if a hardship can
44 be identified.
62
1 Commissioner Price said she was wondering if it could be lessened in the UDO,
2 before the need for a variance.
3 Ashley Moncado said this could be done.
4 Commissioner Pelissier said she does not understand why vegetation is
5 required around accessory structures when the accessory structure is already required
6 to be built of materials similar to a residence. She said this seems to mean that it must
7 be shielded just because it is used as a business, even if it looks like a house.
8 Ashley Moncado said this was meant to reduce the visual impact of introducing
9 a secondary usage on to a piece of property. She said this may also reduce noise
10 impacts.
11 Commissioner Rich noted that the planning board passed the recommendation
12 7 -1. She asked if the person who voted against it had a strong objection to anything in
13 particular.
14 Ashley Moncado said this person had concerns regarding the application fee,
15 enforcement, and the standards limiting economic development in Orange County.
16 Commissioner Gordon said there is a balance between allowing expansion in
17 home occupations and maintaining the existing residential character of the area. She
18 said some businesses could create noises and other impacts, and the required
19 setbacks are not that large. She said the balance is between allowing some non -
20 residential use without disturbing the people already there. She said she is concerned
21 about the noise and other impacts of some of the construction businesses.
22 Commissioner McKee said he agreed with Commissioner Gordon because it is
23 a balancing act. He noted that the 40 foot setback is the size of the current meeting
24 room. He said the goal is to improve the availability of the activity without throwing out
25 all the rules.
26 Commissioner Price said if you consider some of the benign businesses that are
27 located in offices made of the same material as your house, she does not understand
28 why the expense of a fence or shield plants is necessary. She is thinking of the
29 residents in clustered areas or cul -de -sacs that don't allow a lot of room. She said
30 many of the businesses will make less noise than the kids in the neighborhood. She
31 feels a lot of hardship is being put on these businesses by requiring the screens.
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee
34 to close the public hearing.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 Commissioner Dorosin said the more traditional zoning distinguishes between
39 types of uses. He suggested that this ordinance might also have more specifically
40 tailored home occupations and would account for variances in impact, such as less
41 noise, or less light. He said the home occupation could be matched with the
42 requirements.
43 Commissioner Rich agreed with this. She said it is important to know what a
44 business is before applying standards like sheltering.
45 Perdita Holtz said the Planning Department is trying to make the standards fit for
46 all different types of home occupation uses. She said historically, zoning ordinances in
63
0
1 municipalities just lump home occupations into one category. She said Orange County
2 is actually being very progressive by having the major and minor distinctions, and these
3 standards are being liberalized by these proposed amendments. She said it is possible
4 to look at different things and come back, but this will be a trade off.
5 Michael Talbert said since there are a lot of comments on this by the Board, it
6 may be best to send this back to the planning board with the Board of County
7 Commissioners' comments.
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner
10 Price to refer this back to the planning board to review BOCC comments.
11
12 Commissioner Dorosin said it is important, when these home occupations are a
13 source of neighborhood controversy, it is to the County's advantage to make the
14 process very clear.
15 Commissioner Gordon said she would like for the planning board to think about
16 adding standards for traffic impacts. She said the building trades have the potential to
17 have large impacts, and she would like for this to be addressed.
18
19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
20
Attachment 7
Excerpt of Minutes
DRAFT
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 APRIL 2, 2014
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6
7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar
8 Grove Township; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative;
9 Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative
10
11
12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hil. Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township
13 Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; Vacant- Eno Township Representative; Vacant -
14 Hillsborough Township Representative; Vacant -At- Large;
15
16
17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz,
18 Special Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
19
20
21 OTHERS PRESENT: Brent Niemann, Louis lannone, Beth Trohes, Rich Kirkland
22
23 * * * * **
24
25 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT — HOME OCCUPATION: To review
26 certain aspects of the Planning Board- and Planning Director - initiated amendments to the
27 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding Home Occupations. At the February 18,
28 2014 BOCC meeting, the BOCC referred this item back to the Planning Board and staff for
29 further consideration.
30 Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner
31
32 Ashley Moncado: Reviewed abstract.
33
34 Paul Guthrie: If everybody read the minutes of the last meeting, I won't repeat those. I am concerned, while 1
35 understand from a practical standpoint how th;s proposal is organized, it is visualized as protection of residential
36 neighborhood but in many cases, it will be governing places that under no definition would be a residential
37 neighborhood. I understand this is a practical problem of how you define things; it tends to make it easier for people
38 with larger properties and more money to own those properties in order to get into some of the businesses this tends
39 to regulate. I have some concern about that as you get into rural areas because I think that is an unfair balance we
40 don't need to get in to. In many cases, this will be a case of selective enforcement because I don't think the planning
41 department, even in its best day, can totally enforce this because the number of instances that may be used without
42 going through the permitting process so I am always concerned about government regulations where it will be
43 impractical to totally enforce. After reading this I read the intergovernmental sections which suggests to me that parts
44 if not all of this may be actually enforced and moderated by jurisdictions other than the County of Orange because of
45 the enforcing standards where there is contract in areas near cities, town, etc. I would like a better explanation that if
46 this is adopted who will enforce it. I think that is a fair question for the Commissioners. Finally, for a minor permit to
47 require a $90 upfront one -shot cost is pushing the creditability of the staff because the minor permit involves the
48 description of two pieces of paper that will clearly show it is or is not eligible for a minor permit.
49
50 Herman Staats: I like the comment made that the goal is try to balance use of a home as a residence versus use of
51 a home as a business. I think that is something we need to keep in mind with all the discussions we have here. We
52 need to find the balance that allows for some small business while also allowing people who have their homes
53 nearby to enjoy them. I would like to hear more discussion about the proposed changes and concerns about
54 setbacks and things and see the recommendations
.-
65
DRAFT
55
56 James Lea: No comment.
57
58 Andrea Rohrbacher: I don't know how this will be enforced if someone were new to the area and decided they want
59 to start a home business, I think they would go ahead and set up an office and start doing what they do through the
60 home with a small office space and I don't think that would have an impact as we try to address this ordinance but it
61 seems we have put a lot of work into this and there are a lot of regulations that have been thought but will it
62 accomplish what we want it to do with respect to being able to avoid the folks that were not aware and found out they
63 were in violation.
64
65 Pete Hallenbeck: So, some of your concern is for someone who had a smaller operation, one office with just
66 themselves, would they get into a situation where they were in violation and were not aware of it and how would that
67 enforcement occur and what would happen to them. Ashley, if you have one person with no employees it wouldn't
68 be...
69
70 Ashley Moncado: It would most likely be waived, and you would not have to go through the permitting process.
71
72 Pete Hallenbeck: It would not be until you had employees showing up for work that things would kick in.
73
74 Ashley Moncado: Visitors, signage, and then these standards would be in effect.
75
76 Andrea Rohrbacher: What if you had no employees and offered craft classes and had twelve cars in front.
77
78 Ashley Moncado: Then you would have to go through this process.
79
80 Andrea Rohrbacher: How would that person know that?
81
82 Ashley Moncado: Unfortunately, we would have a difficult time reaching them. We are going to provide outreach
83 and have education to let residences know of these changes. But in the situation you described we wouldn't know
84 unless a complaint was received or they contacted our office.
85
86 Pete Hallenbeck: Someone involved in a home business and unaware they were in violation, it will be complaint
87 driven before someone finds out. At that point, the planning staff doesn't show up to put that person in jail but inform
88 them of the process. The goal in the planning office is that if someone complained, the person applied for the permit
89 and things would be great. The only problem would be if someone found out they were in violation and would not
90 apply for the permit then it goes to another level.
91
92 Ashley Moncado: There is no fine.
93
94 Michael Harvey: The typical proceeding is educational first; we work together to correct it. If you choose not to
95 comply, then we would do an enforcement action which states you comply or else, as with any violation with the
96 code, It is incumbent upon the property owner to do their due diligence and determine what regulations, if any, are
97 applicable for anything they are proposing to do.
98
99 Tony Blake: It seems the 'structure built with suitable residential construction materials to resemble' is subjective and
100 could use a statement that says 'compliments' or'the same as adjacent or neighborhood construction'. I think one of
101 the reasons for this is to get people who have home base businesses to come into compliance and possibly pay
102 taxes and be part of the structure than flying under the wire. I am curious as to if there is a non - conforming existing
103 use where someone has been there for a while and now with this ordinance, can you make them?
104
105 Michael Harvey: As we have stipulated during the public hearing, we do have non - conforming regulations in the
106 UDO that specify that a use that was legal at the time it was created made illegal by amendment to the code is
107 allowed to continue, there are limits. This regulation liberalizes several existing situations that make establishing a
M.-
DRAFT
108 home occupation easier. There are structures that already exist as part of the home occupation that may not comply
109 with setback. We will not require people to bring those structures into compliance with code if adopted.
110
111 Pete Hallenbeck: In general, you can't shut down a currently legal operation with a zoning change.
112
113 Paul Guthrie: Has there been any consideration by the county attorney as to whether or not the way you have
114 separated this proposed ordinance that it violates the Equal Protection of Laws under the United States Constitution?
115
116 Michael Harvey: You would have to ask the county attorney but I will tell you and Ashley will confirm it, the county
117 attorney reviewed and signed off on this proposal.
118
119 Paul Guthrie: Even though two activities in two different locations and the sole difference in permitting and non -
120 permitting is the size of the property they exist on.
121
122 Michael Harvey: We currently have that same distinction in zoning districts throughout the county and it doesn't
123 violate the equal protection clause. Different zoning districts, different scenarios of the property breed different
124 standards and evaluation. That is already a constant within zoning ordinances throughout the county.
125
126 Paul Guthrie: Once the ordinance is passed, how will the organization communicate to the general public these new
127 standards?
128
129 Ashley Moncado: We will provide a source on the county website through our division with the new information to
130 contact me directly regarding questions. We will also have a press release to the local newspaper and a possible
131 outreach meeting. Based on how home occupations operate on a case -by -case basis it may be more difficult to do
132 one mass meeting because a lot will be a case -by -case basis on how it will affect an individual. If adopted we are
133 proposing a delay in implementation until July 1 to give staff time to get the information out. If it goes to May 8, we
134 are looking at a delay until July 1 for implementation.
135
136 Paul Guthrie: This is a permit fee, has there been consideration whether it could be considered tax?
137
138 Craig Benedict: It is not based on the value of the property. It is based on what the cost is to provide a review of the
139 proposal. It is based on personnel and time it is not based on property values.
140
141 Paul Guthrie: So you can document the average cost to review?
142
143 Craig Benedict: Yes. That is how we based it.
144
145 Michael Harvey: I would like to add the elected officials of the county set the fees not the planning staff.
146
147 Paul Guthrie: That is irrelevant to the question.
148
149 Michael Harvey: I disagree and I would refute that answer.
150
151 Paul Guthrie: As a fee it has to have some basis in fact to stand as a fee. So, if they make the judgment, unless
152 you can refute their judgment, then that brings it into jeopardy. On the other hand if you are comfortable that you
153 have data to support that fee, that makes it a different thing. I guarantee sooner or later, this will end up in court. It
154 may be later and usually when they end up in court, they are the nastiest kind of case that really isn't what anybody
155 ever thought about before. I am saying you are going to have to manage this and the ducks need to be all in a row.
156 Many of us have been through that and I can tell you that you don't want to get into that situation. Then you become
157 the bad guys on the block and that makes it more difficult to do all kinds of everything else here.
158
159 James Lea: On page 149, why is automotive repair services and detailing not considered a home occupation?
160
67
DRAFT
161 Ashley Moncado: That was a discussion we had at the December Planning Board meeting and those are uses that
162 are not permitted because of the nature and intensity of their uses.
163
164 James Lea: I disagree because of the fact that a lot of people in the rural area do automotive repair at their home
165 and this is saying they are not allowed to do this service at their home and it is an occupation.
166
167 Ashley Moncado: Personal use or doing work for the general public, exchanging money?
168
169 James Lea: For a living, exchanging money, and that's how they make their living. So what this is saying is they can
170 no longer do that?
171
172 Ashley Moncado: Currently it is not permitted through this standard. This was discussed at the November Planning
173 Board meeting but a formal amendment was not presented to staff. It was also discussed at the quarterly public
174 hearing and again at the December Planning Board meeting. At that time the only items identified as the Planning
175 Board wished to see as now being permitted was building, electrical, plumbing mechanical, grading or other
176 construction contracting. The Planning Board did not cite the need to allow the remaining automotive uses to be
177 permitted as home occupation.
178
179 Pete Hallenbeck: Do you see a difference between automotive detailing and the other items in that list?
180
181 James Lea: I do see a difference because you are basically cleaning cars. If you are repairing your car or someone
182 else's car, you should have the right to do that too.
183
184 Ashley Moncado: We are not restricting people from doing work on their personal car. When it becomes an actual
185 operation having people dropping their car and working on multiple cars that is not permitted.
186
187 James Lea: Even if they have the space?
188
189 Ashley Moncado: You are obviously operating business out of your home.
190
191 Perdita Holtz: They are not permitted as a home occupation; there are other avenues to get approval.
192
193 James Lea: If they have the land to do it.
194
195 Pete Hallenbeck: Your basic comment is when you detail a car, it is not noisy or messy, why is that on the list?
196
197 James Lea: All three of those fall in that category.
198
199 Herman Staats: I think this is an example where the size of your lot does make a difference. If you have a one acre
200 lot in the middle of town, I don't want a body shop next door to me but if I own 50 acres out in the country and there
201 are other avenues where I could utilize to run that business there then I would like to have the opportunity to do it. 1
202 think that is a good example of where the size of the lot does have an impact.
203
204 Pete Hallenbeck: If you went for a conditional use permit, they clearly define what you can and cannot do. The
205 process involves your neighbor's input.
206
207 James Lea: Some of my neighbors do work at home on vehicles. I feel they have the right to take their garage and
208 service people's cars if that is what they choose.
209
210 Paul Guthrie: We rent property in another county in this state and many times deal only by telephone and receive
211 mail back and forth about those rentals. Does that put us in a category to need a permit from Orange County to do
212 that business that takes place totally in another county?
213
11
M
DRAFT
214 Ashley Moncado: I would not think so. You don't have people visit you on site and there is no advertisement on that
215 property.
216
217 Pete Hallenbeck: It has come up that large properties are favored and I think that is a natural outcome of the goal of
218 trying to have a balance because when you have a large property, you have to make a lot more noise when you are
219 on a large property. We have talked about enforcement and it is complaint driven. We have some idea of the
220 general approach or attitude of the county. Paul, I want to address your $90 fee is too much, my understanding is
221 that every time you apply for a permit in the county there is a fee and the goal is the person doing things in
222 generating pays for that as opposed to all the taxpayers subsidizing. On the $90 too much, this may be the nature of
223 the stuff I get into. There may be some businesses that are a substantial percentage you are spending to get into the
224 business but I think for a lot of people, you have a lot of other costs. I think the fee is reasonable. Herman, it is all
225 about the balance. I have read every page of these changes and I think this whole process has an incredible amount
226 of input from the Planning Board and the BOCC. I really like the major and minor home use. James, with your
227 comment, we can make a note of this and if you wish to vote against this and make a note of it, it will stand out. I like
228 the fact this protects the rural buffer by not allowing the major home occupations. I am happy to go with this
229 recommendation because it is a good step forward. There is always the opportunity to modify the UDO.
230
231 Tony Blake: Is there a regulation for home -based businesses involving hazardous material or above and beyond
232 what is stored at a residence.
233
234 Ashley Moncado: There is language in "Uses Not Permitted" that does not include all uses that would be unsuitable.
235
236 Michael Harvey: That is addressed in the UDO and other regulations.
237
238 James Lea: Comparing minor and major home occupations, I have a tax service and I am not on five acres of land
239 however, at certain times of the year, there may be 20 or more people to come to my house to get tax service, where
240 does my service fall under?
241
242 Ashley Moncado: Most likely, it would be minor.
243
244 James Lea: Then it limits the number of people who come to my house?
245
246 Ashley Moncado: Correct. You could operate the business but you could only have up to six - customer visit per day.
247
248 James Lea: Isn't it that restrictive. This part to me is too restrictive.
249
250 Pete Hallenbeck: It gets back to the balance concept. You are concerned there may be some home occupations
251 that may have a peak load for relative short periods of time and this could keep those businesses from happening.
252
253 Andrea Rohrbacher: Where do corn mazes fit in?
254
255 Ashley Moncado: They would most likely be exempt because they are agritourism.
256
257 Pete Hallenbeck: At this point let's see if anyone cares to move for a recommendation to accept the planning
258 director's recommendation and we can take a vote on it. James, this is where you can make a decision to say no
259 and I want to emphasize that commissioners do pay attention to these. You are worried about seasonal variances
260 and you believe things related to automobiles should be allowed.
261
262 James Lea: I would like to make it part of the record that I am concerned about that. I think it should be allowed. 1
263 understand if you are in the city there may be concerns. Also, with the major and minor home occupation, I have
264 problems with some of them.
265
266 MOTION made by Paul Guthrie that the proposal lie on the table. Seconded by James Lea.
267
.•
DRAFT
268 Pete Hallenbeck: You are proposing that we not accept the planning director's recommendation? Is that correct?
269
270 Paul Guthrie: That would be the ultimate outcome but that was not my motion. My motion was we leave it on the
271 table.
272
273 Pete Hallenbeck: So you are saying we should not vote on it? So we are going to take a vote to not vote on it, is
274 that correct?
275
276 Paul Guthrie: If you pass the motion then it has to be brought up new.
277
278 MOTION made by Paul Guthrie to leave the recommendation on the table. Seconded by James Lea.
279 VOTE: 2 -4 (Pete Hallenbeck, Herman Staats, Tony Blake, Andrea Rohrbacher) Failed
280
281 MOTION made by Tony Blake with some reservation to accept the recommendation by staff on the major and minor
282 home occupation as presented and hopefully amended later. Seconded by Andrea Rohrbacher.
283 VOTE: 4 — 2 ( James Lea and Paul Guthrie) Passed
284
285 Herman Staats: The discussion was helpful. Whenever this goes to the public, if they understand staff is willing and
286 able to accomoodate them as best they can, I think that is important.
287
288 Craig Benedict: Part of our outreach will include scenarios, FAQs and we will try to use this input from the Board.
289 On the face, it may seem we are restricing something but we are actually liberalizing it.
290
291 Paul Guthrie: I voted no because I think it too broad, I think it is unenforceable. I think it discourages innovation and
292 business development in small businesses. I think it runs counter to the change and nature of work in America that 1
293 think is going to continue on a faster pace where work becomes more and more individualized. Finally, for the
294 planners in the room, I think Jane Jacobs would turn over in her grave.
295
296 James Lea: I just voted no because I believe it is too restrictive instead of promoting small business it is restricting
297 small business and I think it would be restrictive to a lot of people who are already in business. I don't think it is fair.
298
299 Pete Hallenbeck: I understand Paul and James' concerns but also I think we are going from incredibly restrictive to
300 less restrictive because it lets you do a lot more and that is a good step to take. It is important to get your concerns
301 noted but I hope that the whole thing doesn't get thrown out. James, with regard to the seasonal variance, we have
302 this concept about the art tour and the ability to come through and the farms having tours, it seems interesting to me
303 that we have this concept of this seasonal event that occurs where you have above normal traffic but that we are not
304 able to accommodate a tax business so perhaps the same spirit that allow for the annual art tours that is being
305 allowed could be applied to this.
306 * * * **
rol