Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTKSOFTIIK <br />ORONO PJ.ANMNC; C OMMISSION <br />Tuesday, February 19, 2002 <br />6:30 o ’clock p.in. <br />occupations meet the special prov isions of Section 10 63 which has been added to the code GalTron <br />noted Section 10 63 also contains a rec|uirenient that existing home oecupations become conftirming <br />within one year <br />GalTron stated the ordinance as currentiv dralkd does not establish multiple regulatory categories of <br />home oecupations. but merely creates a set of standards that all home occupations must meet If an <br />existing home occupation does not meet the standards, it would be m v iolation of the /oning code and <br />would not be allowed A v lolation of the standards would be treated as a /oning v lolation rather than a <br />licensing violation and would be subject to the legal processes already established in the code for <br />remedy ing such v iolations <br />Gallron stated the Planning Commission should also consider vvhetlicr multiple regulatory categories <br />would be useful GalTron indicated it is ctmimon for cities to have a Iieensing requirement for those <br />home occupations that have certain characteristics that have an impact upon the neighboihood. which <br />might include employment of a nonHXCupant of the dwelling, having customers or clients or their <br />vehicles coming to the property , manufacturing, assembly or processing of products or materials, <br />parking more than one vehicle used in the home occupation that is % ton or less capacitv aiul has <br />attachments such as a plow, et cetera, parking a vehicle used in the home occupation that exceeds <br />% ton capacity. or if the business prcxluces any w aste tlut should be treated or regulated <br />Additional categories for regulatory control could similarly be established for dealing w ith uses that do <br />not meet one or more standards but might mitigate or eliminate the adverse impact upon the <br />neighborhocxJ it it is subjected to certain conditions GalTron stated the Planning Commission could <br />consider requiring a conditional use permit in which the Council s autliority to review or revoke the <br />conditional use permit is spelled out if the conditions are not met or if the conditions fail to mitigate the <br />adverse neighborhcHHl impacts Another option would be to require an annual license tor such uses that <br />have the potential to be a problem <br />Gaffron noted a public hearing on this matter was held by the Plaumng Commission on November I9*. <br />pa(;f 4