10-14-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS (Continued) Recent Council interest in revisiting the home occupation issue was generated in 2001 because staff had been recommending license approval for a small number of long standing home occupations that had one or more employees, in violation of the current code but not causing any problems. Council suggested changing the code simply to allow home occupations to have one non-resident employee under certain conditions. As a result, GaHron pointed out that in 2001 the Planning Commission held discussions on the topic of home occupation licensing, and has spent significant time over the past 12 months considering the merits of various methods of home occupation regulation as well as the standards that should apply. He stated that the resulting Home Occupation regulation is based on the premise that such activity should only require a license when it has potential impacts on a neighborhood. After unanimous recommendation by the Planning Commission on September 16, 2002, the ordinance will incorporate a 2-tier system whereby non-impact home occupations (Level 1) would not need a license, and potential-impact home occupations as well as non-compliant home occupations (Level 2) would be licensed. Attorney Barrett pointed out that under the list of Prohibited Home Oc ipations, letter L, could be viewed as a warning to someone who might want to sell arms. He cautioned that Letters C and I could impact First Amendment Rights and should have further findings incorporated into the language of the ordinance. With regard to Adult Uses, he suggested that more specific findings be added. As far as Churches and religious Institutions were concerned, Barrett believed there to be a number of religious expressions that would create no impact on a neighborhood. He reminded the Council that in cases where there would be large residential impact, those are the home occupations that should require licensing. Gaffton pointed out that there is a fine line that determines at what point a home occupation rises to the level of requiring licensure. Nyg^ asked if Barrett felt that the Church and religious institution home occupation specification should be removed from the prohibited use section of the ordinance. Barrett believed Letter I should be removed. Moorse stated that if the church were to rise to a level whereby more than 20 care were parked there regularly, either a special event permit could be attained or new consideration given. White cautioned that disability home occupations do require exceptions to these rules, since the ADA supersedes zoning standards. Page 14