HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-18-2014 - 5aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 18, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 5 -a
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related to Home
Occupations — Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional
Comments Accepted)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Ashley Moncado, Planner Il, (919) 245 -2589
Development Ordinance (UDO) Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245 -2575
Amendment Outline Form
2. Proposed Ordinance
3. Proposed Amendment Summary
Spreadsheet
4. Excerpt of Draft November 25, 2013
Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes
5. Excerpt of Approved December 4,
2013 Planning Board Meeting Minutes
6. Excerpt of Draft January 8, 2014
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing,
and make a decision on a Planning Board and Planning Director initiated text
amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
As a reminder, the reconvening of this hearing is solely to receive the Planning Board
recommendation and any additional written evidence submitted since the November 25,
2013 Quarterly Public Hearing. This hearing is not intended to solicit additional input
from the public or the applicant. While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the
review of a given item, comments from the public shall not be solicited.
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.
Planning staff is proposing for these amendments to take effect May 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.
K
Public Hearing
The proposed UDO amendment was heard at the November 25, 2013 Quarterly Public
Hearing. Comments received from the BOCC and Planning Board are included at the
end of Attachment 1. Additionally, an excerpt of draft minutes from this meeting are
provided in Attachment 4. 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. Agenda packet materials from the hearing can be
accessed at the following link: http://www.orangecountync.gov/occlerks/1 31125e.pd .
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 6tFikethrn„nh for proposed
deletions). Modifications made following the November Quarterly Public Hearing and
December 4 Planning Board meeting are denoted in green text. An excerpt of approved
minutes from the December 4 Planning Board meeting are contained in Attachment 5.
Finally, Attachment 3 contains a spreadsheet summarizing proposed revisions to
Sections 2.22, 5.3.4, and 5.5.3.
Procedural Information
In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the. UDO, any evidence not presented at the public
hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board's recommendation.
Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board only if it is for the
purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held
open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board's
recommendation and any submitted written comments.
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.
Planning Board Recommendation
The Planning Board considered this item at its January 8, 2014 meeting and voted 7 -1
to recommend approval of the UDO text amendment. An excerpt of draft minutes
from this meeting are included in Attachment 6. Agenda materials from this meeting
can be viewed at
http: / /www.orangecountync.gov /planning/ documents /1.8.14PBPacket- web, df.
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;
2. Close the public hearing; and
3. Approve the Ordinance contained in Attachment 2.
r
Attachment 1
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:
ection(s):
® UDO Text:
❑UDO General Text Changes
®UDO Development Standards
MUDO Development Approval Processes
3ection(s): 1. Section 2.22 Home Occupations - -J
2. Section 5.4.3 Special Events
3. Section 5.5.3 Home Occupations
4. Section 10.1 Definitions
3
❑ Other: I
B. RATIONALE
1. Puroose /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
4
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 LIDO 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
5
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.
2. Analvsis
— - -- - - - - ------------- - ----
- -- -- --
As - - _r e- qu- ired 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.
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, yoais ana uaiectives�
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.
3
6
Economic Development Objective 1.5: Identify barriers to development of
desirable businesses and local businesses, and mitigate these barriers.
4. New Statutes and Rules
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
September 5, 201
b. Quarterly Public
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
----------- --
November 5, 2013 — Approved legal ad for the November 25 Quarterly Public i
Hearing. i
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
d. Other
------------- - -- - - - ------- -- --- - -----------2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements.
a. Planninq 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
b. Advisory Boards:
c. Local Government Review:
The proposed text amendments were
submitted to the JPA Partners on
November 7, 2013. Comments
received from the Town of Carrboro
and the Town of Chapel Hill are
included at the end of this form.
4
d. Notice Requirements
Consistent with NC State Statutes — legal ad prior to public hearing
e. Outreach:
❑ General Public:
❑ Small Area Plan
❑ Other: F_ --
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
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
61
7
SPECIAL DETAILED REQUIREMENTS BASED ON USE AND OCCUPANCY
with'/4\nch (6.35 mm) insulating mill board or other
equivale'lat insulation.
[F] 417. Fire protection. Drying rooms de igned for
high -bazar materials and processes, including re cial occu-
pancies as p vided for in Chapter 4, shall be p tected by an
approved auto atic fire- extinguishing system mplying with
the provisions Chapter 9.
SECTION 418
[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. Orga is co/ting manufacturing opera-
tions and operations incideN
connected therewith shall
not be located in buildings ther occupancies.
[F] 418.3 Process mills. Mting with close clearances
and that process flammable t - sensitive materials, such
as nitrocellulose, shall be n a detached building or
noncombustible structure
[F] 418.4 Tank storage torage 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 -ho fire barriers cons acted in accordance
with Section 707 or horizontal assemb 'es constructed in
accordance with ection 712, or both.
[F] 418.5 Nitr ellulose storage. Nitrocellu se storage shall
be located on detached pad or in a separate str ture or a room
enclosed wit no less than 2 -hour fire barriers onstructed in
accordance with Section 707 or horizontal ass blues con-
structed i accordance with Section 712, or both.
[F] 418. Finished products. Storage rooms for finis ed prod-
ucts th t are flammable or combustible liquids shall a sepa-
rated rom the processing area by not less than 2 -h ur fire
Barr ers constructed in accordance with Section 707 or ori-
zo al assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 12,
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
Eve/work areas:
1. The live /work unit is permitted to be a maximum of
3,000 square feet (279 mz);
2. The nonresidential area is permitted to be a maximum
50 percent of the area of each live /work unit;
3. The nonresidential area function shall be limited to
the first or main floor only of the live /work unit; and
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.
419.3.4 Locks. Egress doors shall be permitted to be locked
in accordance with Item 4 of Section 1008.1.9.3.
419.4 Vertical openings. Floor openings between floor levels
of a live /work unit are permitted without enclosure.
419.5 Fire protection. The live /work unit shall be provided
with a monitored fire alarm system where required by Section
907.2.9 and an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with
Section 903.2.8.
419.6 Structural. Floor loading for the areas within a
live /work unit shall be designed to conform to Table 1607.1
based on the function within the space.
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. Occu cues in G ps I -1, R -1, R -2 and R -3
shall comply with the prove ' of this section and other appli-
cable provisions of this c e.
420.2 Separation Is. Walls separatin elling units in the
same buildi , walls separating sleeping un' in the same
same
d walls separating dwelling or sleeping is from
oth occupancies contiguous to them in the same but
70 2012 NORTH CAROLINA BUILDING CODE
9
From: Patricia 3. McGuire
To: Perdita Holtz
Cc: Martin Rouoe; 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 - traitor
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
Parricia J. McGuire, AICP, CZO, CFM
Planning Director
Town of Carrboro
30I W. Main Street
Carrboro, North Carolina 275I0
350 54'41", -790 04' 39"
9I9- 9I8- 7327(T)/9I9- 9I8- 4454(F)
nmc it ci.carrboro.nc. s http: / /townofcarrboro.org
10
From: Perdita Holtz [ am ilto:pholtzaorangecoun nc.00vl
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:14 AM
To: J.B. Culpepper ( ibculpeoner atownofchapelhill.ora); Patricia J. McGuire
Cc: Craig Benedict; Ashley E.. Moncado; Christina Moon; (apoveromo(a)townofcha elp hill.org)
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)
11
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245-2578
Town of Carrboro, NC Website - http: //Av%uw.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.
12
SOW O,�
L
�SgpEt Nov
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 King Jr. Blvd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
phone (919) 968 -2728 fax (919) 969 -2014
www.townofchapelhill.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,
I V.
Phil Mason, AICP
Principal Planner
13
Comments Received at the November Quarterly Public Hearing
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.
Ordinance #: ORD- 2014 -007
[Attachment 2 J 14
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY
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 May 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 any way 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.
15
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
WE
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 Strike +hreugI Text: Denotes existing text that staff is proposing to delete
• 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
Article 2: Procedures 17
Section 2 22 Home Occupations
(3) Structural stormwater measures that are designed, constructed and ma' ained
in accordance with the NC DWQ Stormwater BMP Design Manual, proved
accounting tool, and requirements listed in Section 6.14 will be resumed to meet
the required performance standards of Section 6.14. Subm' s containing
asures not designed to these specifications, may be proved on a case by
case sis provided the applicant provides adequa data and information
showing w the deviations meet the requirem s of Section 6.14.
(C) Plan Approval
The Erosion Control Officer is thorized t pprove any Stormwater Management Plan
which is in conformance with the p o ance standards specified in the NC DWQ
Stormwater BMP Design Manual, er requirements of this Ordinance.
(D) Approved Plan a Prerequi ' e
The Erosion Control O 'cer is not authorized to issu ny permits for development on
any land that is d i ed as new development under Sec ' 6.14 of this Ordinance
unless and u ' a Stormwater Management Plan in complia with the requirements of
this Ordin ce has been approved.
(E) De ' n of Permanent Nutrient Export Reduction Structural Storm er Measures
When a permanent nutrient export reduction structural stormwater measure is quired
for new development to meet the requirements of this Ordinance, a North Carolina
registered professional engineer shall prepare the plan with the Engineer's Certificatio
Stormwater Management affixed, signed, sealed and dated.
[SECTION 2.22: HOME OCCUPATIONS
2.22.1 Application Reauirements
(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 Approval
(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
Article 5: Uses 18
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 19
Section 5.5: Standards for Residential Uses
(c) The use of the building shall be only for the period of time specified
for the use specified.
(d) The proposed use is a permitted use in the district in which it i ocs
5.5.1 Accessor�,,Structures and Uses
(A) Gener Standards of Evaluation
(1) Ac ssory structures and uses shall not be located i any required front open
spac nd shall conform to the principal setbacks the district where located
unless o erwise provided in this Section
(2) An attache rivate garage, or carport, not ceeding 12 feet in height, may
occupy a porti of the required side op space, provided that this does not
result in a require side open space o ess than 7% of the lot width, nor a total,
when combined with he required si a open space of the lot immediately
adjacent, of less than ' ht feet.
(3) Mobile homes as accesso ructures to residential uses are prohibited.
5.5.2 Efficiency Apartment
(A) General Standards of Ev ation
(1) There shall be more than one efficien apartment, whether detached or
attached, on ny lot.
(2) The effi ' ncy unit shall contains no more than 0 square feet of gross floor
area.
(3) TX residential lot shall meet the minimum lot size req ' ements of the zoning
/((7) istrict in which it is located.
he efficiency unit shall comply with the N.C. Residential Bui 'ng Code including
inimum light /ventilation and room sizes.
he efficiency unit shall be accessory to the principal dwelling unit a may be
ttached or detached.
he efficiency unit shall be served by an approved water supply and sanita
cilities.
he 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
Article 5: Uses 20
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 perm it. 3
(iii) Uses Not Permitted
a. 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 -and
v; Clllil. iRg elects Gal plumhinn rnenhoninol
3 Revisions have been made to address Planning Board comments regarding onsite retail sales.
Proposed standards will exempt home occupations conducting retail sales through the internet if the
operation has no onsite employees, signage, and visitors from the home occupation permit process.
4 Based on comments received at the Quarterly Public Hearing, revisions to this Section will allow
building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, grading, and other construction contracting to operate from a
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -34
Article 5: Uses 21
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.
16VORO in the residence may yierk in the home enni 1patien
Minor home occupations shall not exceed three
nonresident employees onsite at any one time.
b. In all residential districts eXGept RR AR and R_d no
more than 35% of the floor area of the dwelling unit or
580 750 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 "iSitr,rS ,M„merG or deli„criec
employees, students, customers, and /or clients shall not
exceed more than two business trim per he„r m
than eight twenty trips per day. ^r mere than b
deliveries of preduGts or materials p eV, All
residential property with an approved home occupation permit. Revisions are proposed to additional
Sections of the LIDO 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.
5 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
Article 5: Uses 22
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 than not in a required yard area.
C. There shall be no use of a vehicle with a
excess of one ten a gross vehicle weight in excess of
14,000 pounds used in connection with the home
occupation 7. iRG1UdiR9 VehiGles used for delivery OF PiGk
Vehicles With then Mitte.d lead G city generally
n G16ide laFge niGk Up tFUGks and rdeliyeFy tFUGk6 aR d
ens s Ueh as these used by UPS, but would net innl rle
.ehieles s Ush as +ranter trailer OF GIUr„n try Gks 8
(iii) Use of Accessory Structures
a. An accessory building containing up to 1000 1,500
square feet may be utilized in the RR °R and R4
residential zoning districts, detailed in Section 3.3,9
provided that the leg structure is built with suitable
residential construction materials to resemble 4as 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.
8 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
Article 5: Uses 23
Section 5.5: Standards for Residential Uses
ii. Existing vegetation provides suitable screening
of the accessory structure from all adjacent
properties."
C. New structures built for the purpose of conducting a
home occupation shall not exceed 1000 1,500 square
feet in area.
d. An existing accessory structure which is larger than
1000 1,500 square feet may be used for the home
occupation provided that no more than 1000 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
used 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
Article 5: Uses 24
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 employees, 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.
12 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 process, but will still require a minimum setback of 40
feet from all property lines.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -38
Article 5: Uses 25
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 13
iii. Totally screened from the view from the road
and from adjacent property in the same manner
required for accessory buildings.
Mobile Home Parks
Standards for MHP -CZ
Permitted Uses and Structures
ddition to Mobile Homes, as defined by this Ordin e, the following
acce ry structures and uses shall be permitted -
(a) Care er's or manager's home ice.
(b) Service buil * sand are necessary to provide washing and drying
machines for do . aundry, sanitation, rest rooms, storage, vending
machines, and er si . ar services provided by the facility for the use
and conv ' nce of the mo ' home park tenants.
(c) R eation buildings /facilities and a s serving only the mobile home
park in which they are located.
d) Customary accessory buildings and facilities nec sary for operation of
the mobile home park in which they are located.
(e) Storage buildings for individual mobile home spaces and inte d 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
Article 10: Definitions 26
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
WhiGh 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
27
Proposed Amendment Summar\/
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
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
35% of the floor area of the dwelling unit
Proposed revisions allow up to 35% of the floor
area of the dwelling unit or 750 square feet,
Proposed standards will allow up to 50% of the floor
area of the dwelling unit, determined with the
Sections
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 for a 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)
Existing standards allow for two deliveries
Proposed standards will allow for unlimited number of deliveries, but will require all deliveries to be
5.5.3(A)(2)(c)(ii
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
W
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
Revised .. .
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
5.4.3
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
'1...u.uL.u...l.w.J:.n..d..LU LU auLle .. N.-- I n:._iu- :.N-d- l I .I.C_JUJC_I. -IaL: Id-I I
- re_aiuJenau'd_i I u..s_e _ U1 We aul_e _ p._r_u_p._e_n._ay. .
resi•a_residential .• ai I 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
1
Excerpt of Minutes
1 DRAFT
2 MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
5 November 25, 2013
6 7:00 P.M.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
9 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, November 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS
10 Office, Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
13 Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Earl McKee
15 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the
17 Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
18 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, and Planning Board
19 members Maxecine Mitchell, Lisa Stuckey, Paul Guthrie, Herman Staats, Tony Blake, Andrea
20 Rohrbacher, and H.T. "Buddy" Hartley
21 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, James Lea, Stephanie O'Rouke
22
23 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
24
25 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
26
27 Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck had no opening remarks
28
29 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
30
31 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
32
33 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
34
331. 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment— To review government
36 initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to change the existing
37 standards for home occupations, modify and clarify existing regulations and definitions
38 associated with home occupations, and allow for the exemption of special events organized or
39 affiliated with a governmental or non - profit agency. The amendments also seek to find a balance
40 between the trends for small home based businesses and the typical character and enjoyment of
41 residential neighborhoods.
42 Ashley Moncado introduced this item and reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
43
44 Unified Development Ordinance
45 Text Amendment
46 Home Occupation Standards
47 Quarterly Public Hearing
48 November 25, 2013
49 Item C1
50
29
2
1 Purpose
2 To hold a public hearing on a Planning Board and Planning Director initiated Unified
3 Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment regarding existing home occupation standards
4 contained within the LIDO. The amendment also involves the renumbering and reformatting of
5 Sections 2.22, 5.4.3, and 5.5.3.
6
7 Background
8 • UDO Implementation Bridge report
9 — Prepared in 2011 with the adoption of the UDO
10 • Planning Board's Areas of Interest
11 — January 9, 2013 Planning Board meeting
12 • Board of County Commissioners
13 — February 21, 2013 BOCC Retreat
14 — May 14, 2013 BOCC Work Session
15
16 Existing Home Occupation Standards
17 Identified Concerns and Issues
18 — Standards are too limiting regarding:
19 • Permitted number of employees
20 • Square footage allowances
21 • Permitted daily trip counts
22 — Standards do not address permitting events
23 • Orange County Open Studio Tour
24 — Standards may be restricting the art community and operation of individual art
25 studios
26
27 Strive to create a reasonable balance between supporting home based businesses and
28 protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods
29 - Home Occupations /Neighbors
30 * Proposed uses exceeding home occupation regulations may apply for a conditional use permit
31 or relocate to a commercial zoning district
32
33 Planning Board
34 • July 10 Planning Board Meeting
35 — Presentation of current standards and other local jurisdictions' standards
36 • September 4 Planning Board Meeting
37 — Review of draft language and Section 419, Live/Work Units
38 • October 2 Ordinance Review Committee
39 — Presentation and review of draft amendments
40 • October 16 Staff Meeting with the Planning Board Chair
41 — Review of the Planning Board's recommendations
42 • November 2 Ordinance Review Committee
43 — Presentation and review of amendments
44
45 Proposed Amendments
46 Proposed Revisions to:
47 — Section 2.22, Home Occupations
48 — Section 5.4.3, Special Events
49 — Section 5.5.3, Home Occupations
50 — Article 10, Definitions
30
3
1 • Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format with explanatory
2 footnotes as needed
3 • Renumbering and reformatting of identified Sections
4
5 Proposed Amendments
6 • Development of Two Home Occupation Categories
7 — Minor
8 — Major
9 • Minor Home Occupations
10 — Staff review and approval
11 — Permitted in all residential zoning districts
12 — Increase in square footage threshold for residential dwelling units
13 — Increase in square footage for accessory structures
14 — Increase in number of onsite employees
15 — Allow for an increase in the daily number of clients, customers, and students
16 — Revised definition
17
18 Proposed Amendments
19 Major Home Occupations
20 — Require a Class B Special Use Permit
21 — Only permitted in the AR (Agricultural Residential) and R -1 (Rural Residential)
22 zoning districts
23 — Must be located on a parcel at least five acres in size
24 — Square footage threshold for residential dwelling units and number of onsite
25 employees determined by the approved Special Use Permit
26 — Size of accessory structures based on acreage
27 — Allow for daily number of clients, customers, and students
28 — Require a private road maintenance agreement or driveway permit
29 — Proposed definition
30 — Proposed Amendments
31 All Home Occupations
32 — Removal of the daily trip maximum and delivery cap
33 — Modification in measuring the weight of vehicles used in conjunction with the
34 home occupation
35 — Address reviewing and permitting of special events
36 Revisions to Section 5.4.3, Special Events
37 — Allow for events planned, conducted, and affiliated with a non
38 profit or government organization to be exempt from the Special
39 Event and Class B SUP review process
40
41 Addressing Concerns and Issues
42 Existing Standards
43 Concern: Current standards are too limiting regarding:
44 - Permitted number of employees
45 - Square footage allowances
46 - Permitted daily trip counts
47
48 Proposed Standards
49 - Allow for increase in number of onsite employees.
50 - Allow for increase in square footage allowances for residential dwelling units and
51 accessory structures
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
4
- 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 LIDO
- 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.
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.
32
33
1 Ashley Moncado said major home occupations will allow for up to 50 percent of the
2 residential dwelling to be used toward the home occupation and will allow up to 6 non - resident
3 employees on site.
4 She said accessory structures will be permitted up to 2500 square feet on tracts 5 to 10
5 acres in size, and up to 3000 square feet on tracts 11 acres or more.
6 She said standards for the major home occupations will allow for 8 visitors at one time,
7 not exceeding 15 per day.
8 Ashley Moncado noted that the load capacity standard for vehicles will be changed to a
9 gross vehicle weight, and the revised standards will accommodate the use of standard and
10 larger sized pickup trucks.
11
12 Andrea Rohrabacher arrived at 7:10 pm.
13
14 Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck invited questions from the Board.
15
16 Commissioner Gordon asked where section 419 of the building code is located.
17 Ashley Moncado said the reference to this is located at the end of the amendment form.
18 Commissioner Gordon said she is looking for the actual section.
19 Ashley Moncado said this was not included.
20 (Michael Harvey made copies of the missing document and distributed this to the
21 Commissioners and the Planning Board.)
22 Commissioner Pelissier referred to the standards of evaluation on page 15. She noted
23 the uses not permitted and the wording in section B regarding the standards of evaluation. She
24 asked if it was possible for some of the non - permitted uses to actually meet the standards of
25 evaluation.
26 She cited the example of a plumber who once resided in her neighborhood, but was not
27 disruptive. She asked if standards of evaluation could be used, with no automatic non - permitted
28 uses.
29 Ashley Moncado said this was a topic at the last planning board meeting. She said this
30 language was in the UDO to prevent the possibility of a resident using their property as a main
31 center and having too much storage or warehousing on site, or creating increased traffic count.
32 She said the standards proposed tonight may be able to accommodate those uses and prevent
33 them from being unpermitted. She said this is a topic for further discussion.
34 Commissioner Rich thanked the planning department for the robust conversation. She
35 asked about the statement that prohibits the use of a home base for constructing or building
36 anything. She asked if constructing bookcases for a client in a garage shop would be
37 considered building something in a home based business.
38 Ashley Moncado said she did not believe this was prohibited in the UDO. She said there
39 were concerns for operating a building construction contracting business out of the home. She
40 said if someone came forward wanting to build furniture, this would be allowed if the resident
41 met the regulations and did not exceed outdoor storage space or other standards.
42 Commissioner Price referred to the chart on page 2. She noted that the second blue
43 box, under standards of evaluation says "body shop, hauling, and building."
44 Ashley Moncado said this is just a general comment as part of a summary chart to use in
45 referencing the amendments in attachment 2.
46 Commissioner Price asked if these standards are for the rural buffer or the rural area in
47 general. She said some of the standards are very restrictive and would not matter in a rural
48 area. She questioned whether this might hurt rural people, rather than help them in the effort to
49 open a home business.
G
1 Ashley Moncado said the major home occupations would not be permitted in the rural
2 buffer, only in the AR and R1 zoning districts. She said the major home occupations language
3 was modeled after language currently used for minor home occupation. She said the standards
4 for landscaping are currently in place with all home occupations in the UDO.
5 Ashley Moncado referred back to the slide showing the balancing act of allowing and
6 promoting the home based business while protecting neighbors and the rural residential
7 character.
8 Commissioner Price said the neighbors in a rural area may be 2 miles down the road.
9 She said this language seems to make life more difficult rather than easier.
10 She asked about the farm tour and whether this would be exempt like the arts tour.
11 Ashley Moncado said the farm tour would be considered agri- tourism, which would allow
12 it to be exempt from the special event process.
13 Commissioner Dorosin asked if plumbing contracting is prohibited, and he asked what
14 this means. He said it seems that the office portion of a home based plumbing business would
15 be within the description of permitted occupations. He asked for clarification on what is
16 prohibited by the contracting language.
17 Michael Harvey said the purpose of the prohibition is to prevent creation of a bone yard
18 in residential districts. He said this happens when you have storage of materials, and
19 employees continually travel back and forth from the home site to pick up materials and vehicles
20 for a job. He said this policy prohibits mass storage of plumbing supplies and equipment. He
21 said he has personally allowed plumbing businesses to have a home office. He said this policy
22 is not being modified with this proposal.
23 Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarifications about home daycares. He said there are
24 some people who provide daycare in their home, but it is not a formal business.
25 Michael Harvey said there are several different categories of daycare, and there are
26 different permitting processes associated with those activities depending on the number of
27 children. He said anyone wishing to run a home daycare must fill out a zoning compliance
28 permit with the County planning department. He said a floor plan must be provided to show
29 where the children would be located, and documentation must be provided to show the
30 existence of the necessary outdoor play area of 75 square feet per child.
31 Michael Harvey said planning then coordinates with the health department to insure
32 there is adequate septic to support the activity, and then a permit is issued. He said this is not
33 treated as a home occupation; it is a listed permitted use of property, or a special use.
34 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this would be true for a daycare with three students or
35 less.
36 Michael Harvey said the process would still have to be followed.
37 Chair Jacobs followed up on the question regarding farm tours. He said his
38 interpretation of page 5 is that any non - profit is exempt.
39 Ashley Moncado said this is correct.
40 Chair Jacobs asked about the use of accessory structures and the requirement for these
41 buildings to look like a residential structure. He said that barns do not look like a residential
42 structures and may be located half a mile from the nearest neighbor. He asked if the strict
43 appearance and landscape requirements would apply even to this.
44 Ashley Moncado said, based on this proposal, yes. She said those issues were not
45 previously highlighted as a concern; therefore they were not addressed with the planning board.
46 Commissioner Gordon referred to page 15 - 2A and 2. She asked if a home occupation
47 permit is required for a minor home occupation.
48 Ashley Moncado said yes.
49 Commissioner Gordon noted that some occupations are exempt. She asked if an event
50 can be done without a permit.
34
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
7
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.
35
0.1
1 Commissioner Price asked how this will affect farm based businesses, for example
2 someone making jam to sell on the roadside.
3 Perdita Holtz said businesses located on a bonafide farm, making a value added product
4 are exempt from zoning regulations. She said if it is not a bonafide farm, such as a person
5 making jam in their home kitchen, environmental health permits would be required. She said
6 this would be a home based business that requires a permit.
7 Commissioner Price asked if this means the person would still be able to sell in front of their
8 home.
9 Perdita Holtz said a home occupation would not be able to sell in front of their house.
10 Commissioner Price referred to the traffic issue. She said her tax accountant works out
11 of his home and has people drop taxes at his house. She said her neighbor generated more
12 traffic from teenage boys and their friends coming and going than the tax collector generates
13 from the business. She said she does not understand how traffic can differentiate.
14 Ashley Moncado said that can be a hard thing to regulate. She said the original
15 numbers were much greater than those being submitted tonight. She said charts were created
16 to show average trips. She said the original numbers proposed gave a number of upwards of
17 160 trips per day resulting from a major home occupation. She said this is based on a worst
18 case scenario of employees taking lunches, or a parent bringing children back and forth to piano
19 lessons.
20 Ashley Moncado said those traffic counts were why the recommendations were reduced,
21 in order to bring the counts down a little. She said an average single family residential unit will
22 create 4 -20 trips per day. She said the recommendations provided tonight go above that range
23 to accommodate for family and business trips. She said the goal is to keep it in the appropriate
24 range for a single family residential home.
25 Commissioner Gordon read the statement about creating a reasonable balance. She
26 referred to page 7 and asked why this says home occupation would be promoted and
27 encouraged. She gave the following alternative wording: "appropriate balance between
28 supporting home based business and protecting the character and enjoyment of residential
29 neighborhoods."
30 Ashley Moncado said the planning board's goal has been to promote home based
31 businesses. She said the one sentence focuses on one side of it; however the goal is to focus
32 on providing opportunities for residents to have a different means to conduct business through
33 their home, but it also important to protect the character of residential neighborhoods.
34 Commissioner Gordon said use of the words promote and encourage, does not sound
35 like a balance.
36 Ashley Moncado said this comes from the original goal. She said that one sentence
37 does not encompass all of this.
38 Commissioner Dorosin said it has been out of balance in the other direction, and now
39 the goal is to balance it by promoting home businesses. He said the pendulum often swings
40 too far the other way when these kinds of corrections are made.
41 Commissioner Rich noted that no one from the public was in attendance. She asked if
42 any input or comment was made at previous meetings or through emails.
43 Tony Blake said staff and board members spoke with neighbors and drew from personal
44 experiences. He feels these businesses are an underappreciated part of the economy.
45 Pete Hallenbeck said there were no comments from the public. He said most of the
46 planning board does some aspect of their work from their home.
47 Tony Blake said he works for corporation from home office, and he is exempt; however
48 many of his neighbors do work from home businesses.
49 Commissioner Rich said many people today use their home to telecommute.
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
0
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 this 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 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 minor is fine, but she
questions going above 1000 square feet or 2 employees for minor home occupations.
Commissioner Gordon said people on small lots are more affected by what neighbors
do. She said the difference is that there could be a neighbor creating a lot of impact, but not
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,
and there is plenty of area for parking, no one is going to be bothered.
She feels the minor 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.than 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.
37
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
10
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 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.
11
1 He said there are many limits being played with in the effort to preserve character, such
2 as size of structures, number of visits and size of trucks. He said there are many opinions, and
3 there have been many discussions. He said the changes to the minor uses were designed to
4 bring the various municipal and rural rules a little closer to the municipality rules.
5 Pete Hallenbeck said the size limits are interesting because there are two different kinds
6 of rural character; one is where you have a farm with the normal and expected traffic and noise,
7 and the other is a big lot residential community where no one wants that farm experience. He
8 said this makes many of these decisions hard.
9 He referred to the plumbing example and said no one had a problem if a plumber simply
10 owned a truck or two at their house. He said there is a point however, where the business
11 would be big enough that it should be moved to an office park like Millstone Drive.
12 Pete Hallenbeck said he likes the idea of changing the goal of the document from
13 promoting business to promoting a balance between business and residential. He said that
14 wording will help people make better decisions for this living document in the future.
15 He said the other thing that everyone is wrestling with is balancing the impact more than
16 restricting certain occupations. He likes the idea of screening and setbacks, and he said
17 perhaps the planning board can look at this. He said perhaps a building that is 500 feet from
18 the property would not need shrubbery.
19 Pete Hallenbeck said he has 1500 square feet of work space over the garage and 1000
20 square feet in his basement, both used for different types of projects. He shares this as an
21 example of that balancing act of putting a limit on square footage, putting a limit on the activities,
22 or putting a limit on what can be seen, heard, or smelled, as well as the traffic count.
23 Lisa Stuckey thinks it makes more sense to get rid of the language on page 15 regarding
24 the building businesses. She feels the language should focus more on the visual impact of the
25 businesses. She thinks these home businesses should be invisible to neighbors
26 Paul Guthrie said he has had some questions, as reflected in the minutes. He said he
27 has been skeptical, not of the concept, but of the specificity of the language. He said one
28 example is the provision for barriers and buffers, which requires an 80 foot space between
29 activities and neighbors. He said this is over half an acre and, coupled with other issues, puts a
30 real barrier on people who want to operate on their own property.
31 He said ever time he reads this document he sees a new issue, and this tells him this
32 process needs to be carefully considered. He said this can be accommodated with a
33 reasonable degree of judicial flexibility, so as not to impede people's ability to make a living.
34 Paul Guthrie said this is just part of the working life today. He said 50 percent of his
35 neighbors have been involved in a home business of some sort, and he has a daughter who
36 telecommutes from London. He said this is symbolic of the new world we live in, and it must be
37 thought through in coming to a final conclusion on this issue.
38 Maxecine Mitchell said she would like to address Commissioner Rich's question about
39 public input. She said she is an average person, and she may start a home business. She
40 does not want all of these restrictions so that she would potentially have to move out if the
41 business did well. She also does not want to discourage other people from creating a business.
42 Ashley Moncado proposed a revision to the recommendation. She requested this be
43 brought back to the February 18th meeting, in order to allow time to work with the planning board
44 to address the concerns highlighted tonight.
45 Chair Jacobs said this seems more practical.
46
47 A motion was made by Renee Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich:
48 • To receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance.
49 • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
50 the proposed amendment.
39
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
• 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.
David Hunt
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Barry Jacobs, Chair
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Approved 1/8/2014
Excerpt of Minutes
Attachment 5
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 4, 2013
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township
Representative; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar Grove Township; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill Township;
Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill
Township; Stephanie O'Rourke, Eno Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township;
Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Vacant- Hillsborough Township Representative;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz,
Special Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant li
OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Hitchens
Agenda Item 8: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment — Home Occupations: To
discuss the issues raised at the November quarterly public hearing on Planning Board —
Planning Director 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 government or non - profit agency and to decide on a
course of action for revisions to the proposed amendments.
Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner
Herman Staats: Are there any monetary values that guide whether something is considered an occupation?
Ashley Moncado: I have not seen anything in my research that puts a value on it.
Paul Guthrie: It is a big question in terms of the revised definition of what was covered but also because you are
technically out of compliance or illegal if you have one visitor and one retail sale out of your house the way this is
written. I think the definition is vague because the way it is worded and it pales behind the question of how many
transactions is the planning staff going to have to handle, and with these definitions there will be thousands.
Ashley Moncado: The purpose of this item is to be able to review the comments from the quarterly public hearing
and receive feedback from you to provide a proposal for review at the January Planning Board meeting.
Ashley Moncado reviewed the list of comments.
Paul Guthrie: We have a home business in our house, my daughter works full time in her house in Orange County.
I want to zero in on the standards of evaluations of all home occupations in paragraph in red on page 40. That
statement by its character would suggest that if any one of those things occurred in your business you would be
required to file for at least a minor permit?
Ashley Moncado: Correct. Our intention of writing the on -site retail sales ... what you are describing is that she is
not welcoming anyone on to the site. Everything is done online or on the phone.
41
Approved 1/8/2014
42
54 Paul Guthrie: What about the internet sale.
55
56 Ashley Moncado: If you are looking at internet sales and no one is being welcome on site then they would be
57 exempt. As soon as you welcome people on the site and have a sales transaction, then you would have to go
58 through a minor home occupation.
59
60 Paul Guthrie: I went back to the UDO and in the context of this language that is what flagged this immediately. 1
61 think we need to be careful as we expand this.
62
63 Tony Blake: I was reading the Carrboro response on page 31 and they brought up a couple of issues that were
64 transitive issues from allowing the other home base business and it talks about how many people and how many
65 vehicles and their security. These are the types of small businesses under the radar out there and 1 don't want to
66 discourage them. We need to find a way to fix that.
67
68 Herman Staats: If this is a planning issue where we consider use of property, etc. then the implementation of it and
69 what guides that implementation is the question. Are we asking for links or copies of tax returns? How do we
70 implement this? If for farming, you have to have a dollar amount to be classified as a farm.
71
72 Perdita Holtz: Can I clarify that point. It is no longer the case that you have to have a certain level of sales to be
73 classified a bona fide farm; the state legislature changed it last year. There is no longer a minimum amount.
74
75 Herman Staats: My point is about being tax exempt with a certain dollar amount that defines that you a real farm
76 and deserve a tax exempt status. Is it the purpose of this permitting process to make someone selling a hundred
77 bucks a year to get a permit? Are there guidelines?
78
79 Paul Guthrie: The only difficulties are sales is very different in terms of that one sale.
80
81 Lisa Stuckey: A lot of sole proprietorships aren't tax exempt. I don't know where to draw the line. How onerous is
82 the process we have developed?
83
84 Michael Harvey: Under the current process, which is what the minor will end up being, the application package
85 requires the applicant show us the property using a plot plan, provide a floor plan of your house, and a detailed
86 narrative explaining the operations of the home based business. We can typically handle an application within 30
87 minutes if you want to wait for it, you pay your $90 application fee, we send you the approval packet, you sign it and
88 you are on record as having the permit being issued.
89
90 Lisa Stuckey: Is there an annual fee?
91
92 Michael Harvey: No.
93
94 Paul Guthrie: This is a backdoor business license.
95
96 Perdita Holtz: No, it is a land use regulation.
97
98 Tony Blake: We are interested in the impact on their property and their neighbors. The function of planning is to
99 say, we are looking for innovation, we shouldn't hobble it. The rest of the regulation is for another department.
100
101 Lisa Stuckey: If it is basically invisible to the neighbors, how much impact is that having on the neighbors?
102
103 Tony Blake: We are allowing some of these subdivisions to come in and they are next to a farm, it's like the guy
104 moving next to the airport and complaining about the planes.
105
106 Lisa Stuckey: On page 40,1 would like to get rid of 2A, 3A and 6. 1 think it is very inappropriate.
0
Approved 1/8/2014
43
107
108 Ashley Moncado: To be clear, this isn't about the office space but the day to day operations they would be allowed
109 to operate.
110
111 Lisa Stuckey: I think with number 2A4 that it shouldn't be visible. Something should be added for visible impact.
112
113 Craig Benedict: There is a standard for normal storage for home occupations license which is 500 square feet. As
114 long as that is screened, you are saying it is ok.
115
116 Herman Staats: I am still concerned about implementation.
117
118 Tony Blake: What is the definition of a business?
119
120 Craig Benedict: If someone is claiming it as a business, and they have to meet tax laws, then they should have a
121 home occupation license.
122
123 Paul Guthrie: You just brought in all the telecommuters with that last phrase.
124
125 Tony Blake: The way people find out is if there is a complaint issue.
126
127 Perdita Holtz: Michael uses his discretion to find that out.
128
129 Michael Harvey: The goal of the LIDO is not to stop Lucy Van Pelt from selling lemonade but allow reasonable use
130 of property so that your reasonable use doesn't impact your neighbors. If you have an incidental home occupation,
131 selling a tree they cut down, does that activity rise to a level of business requiring the submitted of a home
132 occupation permit application for review and approval? Not unless you do it every day.
133
134 Ashley Moncado: We can look into adding language regarding no visible disturbance impact. If that is included,
135 would you see there would not be a need for landscaping and buffering or keep that intact?
136
137 Lisa Stuckey: I don't know. To me that is a little bit of protection.
138
139 Ashley Moncado: If you exceed the setback standard, and you go beyond that you would not have provide
140 landscaping.
141
142 Craig Benedict: There was also a lot size involved.
143
144 Paul Guthrie: How will you enforce this if it approved?
145
146 Craig Benedict: We are permitting this amount; we know there is this amount. By this ordinance, we are allowing
147 this to happen or bringing more into compliance. We think we have resolved a lot of issues more than creating
148 issues. The implementation, we are doing public outreach, we may do a phase in but it is not going to be a hard
149 handed implementation because rural lifestyles are engrained. This will be a soft implementation.
150
151 Lisa Stuckey: You look this up, an accessory business use which is owned or operated. That is the definition. Is it
152 helpful for you to have a more concrete definition or is that adequate?
153
154 Craig Benedict: We like to be as specific as possible.
155
156 Herman Staats: If this is put in place to provide more leverage in the case where it is needed for resolution of
157 complaints, then this will serve its purpose.
158
3
44
Approved 1/8/2014
159 Tony Blake: I didn't want to outlaw people who were not bothering anyone. I think the County wants to encourage
160 development.
161
162 Ashley Moncado: Any more comments?
163
164 Craig Benedict: We will have to see how these revisions you suggested are incorporated into the text and Ashley
165 will bring it back next month for a formal vote.
166
167 Ashley Moncado: After the Planning Board votes on this item in January 2014, it will go to the BOCC in February
168 2014.
169
170 Tony Blake: Did you make any attempt to address Alice's concern about the size of the building in the minor?
171
172 Ashley Moncado: That was commented on for Board discussion tonight.
173 * * * * **
4
Excerpt of Minutes lAttachmenM
DRAFT
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 JANUARY 8, 2014
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6
7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large
8 Bingham Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar Grove
9 Township; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony
10 Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At -Large Chapel Hill Township;
11
12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill
14 Township; Vacant- Hillsborough Township Representative; Vacant — Eno Township Representative
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 Agenda Item 8: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment — Home Occupations: To
22 make a recommendation to the BOCC on Planning Board — and Planning Director — initiated
23 amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to change the existing standards
24 for home occupations, modify and clarify existing regulations and definitions associated with
25 home occupations, and allow for the exemption of special events organized or affiliated with
26 a government or non - profit agency. This item was heard at the December 4, 2013 Planning
27 Board meeting.
28 Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner
29
30 Ashley Moncado reviewed abstract
31
32 Paul Guthrie: First the disclaimer that I give every time that we in our household have an interest in small business.
33 1 have had a lot of questions with this and I have one particular thing that I want to raise which is not new but I want
34 to raise it again. That is for minor home occupations, no matter whether you have one customer per year or 500,
35 you have to pay $90 to the planning department for the privilege of having a license. I have real problems with that
36 with certain occupations those defined as minor home occupations. I have a little bit of problem but not as much
37 with the requirement of a plot plan if it has to be done professionally. I had suggested earlier that it should be
38 sufficient in residential home to use what is on the GIS system as a sketch of the property and indicate on that
39 whether or not that would be viable. I would hope there could be some accommodation especially for extremely
40 small line of business so that it doesn't become a big paperwork jungle in order to file.
41
42 Pete Hallenbeck: Well, Mr. Harvey do you have a comment on that?
43
44 Michael Harvey: As I've indicated before, a plot plan is a simple drawing that you can use the GIS map system, it's
45 actually listed that way in the Unified Development Ordinance. It's not a professionally prepared site plan. The $90
46 dollar fee is a one -time application fee. There are application fees for everything you have to do and this is a one -
47 time fee that you have to pay. I don't believe it is burdensome and I don't believe it is unnecessary and I believe we
48 are within our right to charge the fee.
49
50 Paul Guthrie: I'm not going to follow with the natural comment other than to say, I believe that to be a burden on
51 people trying to start a small business in a residence and I think as a matter of public policy, giving the nature of the
52 changing of the economics in this society, that we ought to be very careful about how we do this. That was one set
53 of comments. My personal opinion and I think everybody has heard me before on the record, my personal opinion
54 is you will have massive ignoring of this. What will come will be selective enforcement. I'm not comfortable with
W
46
DRAFT
55 selective enforcement. I think when you have enforcement, you enforce those are not in compliance but the
56 enforcement actions and the litigation etc. that will follow will take precious time from the planning department and
57 the legal hypothesis of the County on this and I question that in the area of minor home occupation. I think with that
58 I'll let others comment.
59
60 Herman Staats: I have no comments, I thought it was nicely done and it has been discussed here many times so 1
61 have no other comments.
62
63 James Lea: No comments at this time.
64
65 Buddy Hartley: I don't have any problems with the standards set.
66
67 Maxecine Mitchell: I agree with them.
68
69 Tony Blake: I reread it and I don't have any issues with it. I think it is well put together.
70
71 Johnny Randall: I read it and I couldn't find anything of concern. However, what Paul just brought up, so in terms of
72 people not conforming to these regulations, how is it going to be enforced? Is it going to just create contempt for
73 the law for people who don't think they can be caught?
74
75 Pete Hallenbeck: Let me throw my two cents on that and then see what Michael says. I think what you said is very
76 true. You have all these ordinances and there are always people who are going to fly under the radar and do what
77 they want but I think part of the goal here is that if somebody is doing that and it is bothering their neighbors there is
78 a recourse. I don't know how you get people to follow the rules, it is very difficult, but I do like the fact that at least
79 they are there. It is very difficult to call out a neighbor, it's a catch22, we all want to be able to do what we can but
80 we like to be able to stop someone else if it is bothersome to us.
81
82 Pete Hallenbeck: Michael, does that pretty much jive with what......
83
84 Michael Harvey: I'm not going to add anything. Thank you though.
85
86 Pete Hallenbeck: I have two things, one is a question about 5.4.3 special events where it talks about arts and
87 cultural special events in particular it calls out the Orange County Open Studio Tour. The other thing that I am
88 familiar with is the farm tour.
89
90 Ashley Moncado: That is exempt, that would be considered part of a bona fide farm and considered agricultural
91 and covered under a different set of rules.
92
93 Tony Blake: But that just an example.
94
95 Ashley Moncado: Yes, it is being used as an example. That was specifically called out as an example but also to
96 highlight it as well.
97
98 Pete Hallenbeck: That's fine but by throwing it in there seemed odd to have an ordinance call out a specific event
99 instead of making it in general so I wanted to make sure it was an example.
100
101 Ashley Moncado: We could add "for example ".
102
103 Paul Guthrie: That's about a 100, anywhere from 90 to 120 artists, who once a year open up their studios in their
104 residences by in large for the tour over two day for two weeks. Every one of those artists will have to pay $90.
105
106 Pete Hallenbeck: So does this get back to your $90 concern then?
107
108 Paul Guthrie: That's one of them but it's much more delicate than that.
2
47
DRAFT
109
110 Pete Hallenbeck: My second comment on this is on the minor home occupation, the 750 sq. ft, limit is interesting, it
111 takes me out of the game for the sq. footage I have in my house. It takes room to have a machine shop and test
112 benches and rooms for parts and electronics and I don't think how much of your home you use is something that
113 impacts your neighbors. However, I'll also point out that as an ordinance it is pretty nice because if that really
114 bothered me I could apply for a major home occupation and there is a mechanism to do that. That brings me to my
115 last comments and I can't remember an ordinance that had so many lines in the sand that were being discussed.
116 We talked about sq. footage, number of trips, setbacks, what activity you can do, number of visits, size of vehicles,
117 and it is quite extraordinary for this Board to deliberate something that has so many different thresholds and lines in
118 the sand. I think it makes it a very difficult thing to discuss. Those are all my comments. Doesn't anybody have
119 anything thing else to add?
120
121
122 MOTION by Tony Blake to recommend to the County Commissioners to accept this recommendation with comments.
123 Seconded by James Lea.
124 VOTE: PASSED 7-1 (Guthrie opposed)
125
126 Paul Guthrie: I believe that with this ordinance we are moving into an area that we are not prepared to deal with and
127 1 think that while the intention is good, if you read the language carefully, especially when you start picking up the
128 LIDO and reading the references, that it exposes the County to some great difficulty, that's point one. Point two, due
129 to the current economic situation, the more and more independent, small businesses erupting whether they start in
130 the garage in California and become a billion dollar corporation or whether they start in a garage in Orange County
131 and become a fifty thousand dollar organization, this can and may, if not administered in a very careful way, an
132 inhibition to economic development and to small business. I would much prefer to see the County develop a small
133 business license system using some of these definitions than to smuggle it through under a regulation of the use of
134 an individual residential property. With my own experience, two different enterprises in our family, one which falls
135 under this and one which does not, I would vote no.
136 * * * * **
3