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