03-18-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19, 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (tfOI>2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Continued) Smith indicated she voted in opposition to the motion because in her opinion swimming pools should be included in lot coverage. (#04) #2333 PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMEN"*-, SECTION 10.20 SUBD. 4C, HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS GafTron stated before the Planning Commission tonight is a summary of the conclusions reached during the December 20'*' work session. Gaffron stated Section 1 of the draft ordinance eliminates provisions for home occupation licensing and makes them an accessory use in residential zones. Gaffron stated the proposed zoning code amendment also eliminates most of the performance standards that were included in the current zoning code. Section 3 revises the Home Occupation accessory use entry as it appears in the list of R-1A allowed accessory uses. The new language requires that all home occupations meet the special provisions of Section 10.63, which has been added to the code. GaflVon noted Section 10.63 also contains a requirement that existing home occupations become conforming within one year. Gaffron stated the ordinance as currently drafted does not establish multiple regulatory' categories of home occupations, but merely creates a set of standards that all home occupations must meet. If an existing home occupation does not meet the standards, it would be in violation of the zoning code and would not be allowed. A violation of the standards would be treated as a zoning violation rather than a licensing violation and would be subject to the legal processes already established in the code for remedying such violations. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission rhould consider whether multiple regulatory categories would be useful. GafTron indicated it is common for cities to have a licensing requirement for those home occupations that have certain characteristics that have an impact upon the neighborhood, which might include employment of a non-occupant of the dwelling; having customers or clients or their vehicles coming to the property; manufacturing, assembly or processing of products or materials; parking more than one vehicle used in the home occupation that is V* ton or less capacity a id has attachments such as a plow, et cetera; parking a vehicle used in the home occupation that exceeds Va ton capacity; or if the business produces any waste that should be treated or regulated. Additional categories for regulatory control could similarly be established for dealing with uses that do not meet one or more standards but might mitigate or eliminate the adverse impact upon the neighborhood if it is subjected to certain conditions. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could consider requiring a conditional use permit in which the Council’s authority to review or revoke the conditional use permit is spelled out if the conditions are not met or if the conditions fail to mitigate the adverse neighborhood impacts. Another option would be to require an annual license for such uses that have the potential to be a problem. Gaffron noted a public heanng on this matter was held by the Planning Commission on November 19* with no public comments being received. This item was then tabled to a work session on December 20*. w hich resulted in staff being dnected to make a number of reusions to the drafr approv ed by the PAGE 3 inJb