Laserfiche WebLink
SEP 2 3 2002 <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />CUYOFORONO <br />Date: Sq)tember 17,2002 <br />Item No.: | O <br />Department Approval:Administrator Approval: <br />Name: Michael P. Gaffton <br />Title: Planning Director . <br />Agenda Section: <br />Zoning <br />Item Description: Home Occupation Ordinance • Adoption <br />ListofExhibito <br />A - New Ordinance for Adoption <br />B - Existing Home Occupation Ordinances <br />The new ordinance in a nntshell: <br />1) Establishes a new/revised set of performance standards or regulations for Home Occupations. <br />2) Eliminates licensing for home occupations that meet the new performance standards and which are <br />considered as having **no potential neighborhood impacts ”. These are defined as Level I Home <br />Occupations. <br />3) Retains licensing for specified types of home occupations (defined as Level 2 Home Occupations) <br />which: <br />- meet the performance standards but which could have potential neighborhood impacts; or <br />- don’t meet the performance standards but are not prohibited. <br />4) Establishes a list of prohibited home occupations. <br />Background <br />Orono’s “Home Occupation ” ordinances currently require that any and all activities that fit the <br />definition of a “home occupation" are subject to an annual license. Each such activity is required <br />to meet a set of operating criteria established in the ordinance. Council as early as 1 998 suggested <br />that the current ordinance provisions should be reviewed and updated or revised as necessary. <br />In 1998, then City Planner/Zoning Administrator Liz Van Zomeren worked with the Planning <br />Commission to draft an amended Home Occupation ordinance. That draft ordinance would have <br />completely eliminated licensing and would have permitted home occupations as an accessory use <br />subject to enforcement of performance standards. That draft also included a list of “Prohibited” home <br />occupations, which were deemed to be likely to have negative neighborhood impacts. The draft <br />reflected good work by the Planning Commission, but got bogged down in discussions as to home <br />occupations in accessory buildings. No action was taken. <br />J