Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 19,2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#01-2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment,Continued) <br /> Smith indicated she voted in opposition to the motion because in her opinion swimming pools should be <br /> included in lot coverage. <br /> (#04) #2333 PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 10.20 SUBD.4C, <br /> HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS <br /> Gaffron stated before the Planning Commission tonight is a summary of the conclusions reached during <br /> the December 20th work session. Gaffron stated Section 1 of the draft ordinance eliminates provisions <br /> for home occupation licensing and makes them an accessory use in residential zones. <br /> Gaffron stated the proposed zoning code amendment also eliminates most of the performance standards <br /> that were included in the current zoning code. Section 3 revises the Home Occupation accessory use <br /> entry as it appears in the list of R-1A allowed accessory uses. The new language requires that all home <br /> occupations meet the special provisions of Section 10.63,which has been added to the code. Gaffron <br /> noted Section 10.63 also contains a requirement that existing home occupations become conforming <br /> within one year. <br /> Gaffron stated the ordinance as currently drafted does not establish multiple regulatory categories of <br /> home occupations,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 in violation of the zoning code and <br /> would not be allowed. A violation of the standards would be treated as a zoning violation rather than a <br /> licensing violation and would be subject to the legal processes already established in the code for <br /> remedying such violations. <br /> Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should consider whether multiple regulatory categories would <br /> be useful. Gaffron indicated it is common for cities to have a licensing requirement for those home <br /> occupations that have certain characteristics that have an impact upon the neighborhood,which might <br /> include employment of a non-occupant of the dwelling; having customers or clients or their vehicles <br /> coming to the property; manufacturing, assembly or processing of products or materials;parking more <br /> than one vehicle used in the home occupation that is 3/4 ton or less capacity and has attachments such as <br /> a plow, et cetera;parking a vehicle used in the home occupation that exceeds 3/4 ton capacity; or if the <br /> business produces any waste that should be treated or regulated. <br /> Additional categories for regulatory control could similarly be established for dealing with uses that do <br /> not meet one or more standards but might mitigate or eliminate the adverse impact upon the <br /> neighborhood if it is subjected to certain conditions. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could <br /> consider requiring a conditional use permit in which the Council's authority 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 neighborhood impacts. Another option would be to require an annual license for such uses that <br /> have the potential to be a problem. <br /> Gaffron noted a public hearing on this matter was held by the Planning Commission on November 19th, <br /> with no public comments being received. This item was then tabled to a work session on December <br /> 20th, which resulted in staff being directed to make a number of revisions to the draft approved by the <br /> PAGE 3 <br />