Loading...
2003-911-Minutes for Meeting May 14,2003 Recorded 5/28/2003DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 2003.911 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0512812003 04:25:14 PM 111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIII I IIII�I III 2003-00 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE This page must be included if document is re-recorded. Do Not remove from original document. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.ora MINUTES OF DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MAY 149 2003 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Catherine Morrow and Damian Syrnyk of Community Development; and two other citizens. No media representatives were present. The purpose of the meeting was for the Commissioners and staff of Community Development to discuss questions raised by citizens and by the Commissioners at a previous public hearing regarding a proposed home occupation ordinance. Chair Dennis Luke opened the meeting at 9: 05 a.m. Damian Syrnyk gave an overview of two documents compiled to narrow the focus of the discussion. These documents are: ■ Commissioner Response to Home Occupation Questionnaire (attached as Exhibit A) ■ Home Occupation Questionnaire — Summary of Results (attached as Exhibit B) Mr. Syrnyk observed that three out of the seventeen issues were agreed upon by all three Commissioners (items #1, 7 and 12). He stated that eight others (items #3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13) were agreed upon by two Commissioners, with the third Commissioner either being undecided or in disagreement with the other two Commissioners regarding the provision. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 1 of 19 Pages DENNIS LUKE: (Regarding question #10.) We're talking about incidental sales, right? The primary thing is not selling stuff. For instance, you have a beauty shop and also have items for sale. The people wouldn't be coming there to buy the products. SYRNYK: Another example would be someone who is a piano teacher who might sell a practice book for the student to take home. LUKE: Agricultural products are covered now; you can do that now. DEWOLF: The reason I was undecided was where we started with this whole thing. You've got an agricultural business, but then you've got a mulch pile that the neighbors take issue with. CATHERINE MORROW: That's not part of this section of the Code. If you are in an EFU zone and you are running an agricultural business, and you have a mulch pile and someone complains about it, that's part of farming. And it's not really related to running a business in your home. DEWOLF: I disagree with that. Not with where you are headed, but when we had the issue of the huge compost pile, and it was battled out here, specifically whether it was allowed or not as a home occupation as part of the occupation that was being handled out in that area. That was one of the big things. MORROW: And it was a home occupation and not an EFU issue? DEWOLF: I don't remember. That was one of the key reasons that lead us to do this, so that we could resolve those kinds of issues up front more clearly for everybody. That's what led to it. And that's why I answered this question the way I did. I wasn't sure. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 2 of 19 Pages LUKE: It was alleged in the land use hearing that not all of the mulch was used on site. So that is what generated a lot of the testimony. •' ' • And that gets to these two questions that we had relating to definitions, the distinction between things that are done on site in homes and accessory buildings, and things where there might be equipment or materials stored that are used off site. Those are two different things, and we need to clarify those definitions. I think we have consensus on that. DALY: I agree. Some things don't even enter into a home occupation, such as a landscaper or a well driller or whatever. DEWOLF: I kept going with the three tiers that we are discussing here. I'm with you guys. If it's a hairdresser who is selling shampoo, nobody cares and it's not an issue. DALY: Number 8 is confusing, regarding the number of trips generated. One criterion I used is, is it enforceable? Who's going to count the cars going in and out of that residence? Nobody. We're not going to do that. DEWOLF: I disagree completely. And I'll prove it to you. That's why we got into the basketball wars eight or nine years ago, because the people who enforce it, you respond to complaints, which is what most of our code enforcement is, the neighbors saying, they are doing something they shouldn't be able to do. They've got cars piled up in their backyard, or they've got axles stacked twenty feet high. And the next door neighbor is going to say that according to your Code, they are allowed six trips a day, and they've got thirty cars an hour, and I can document it with a videotape. LUKE: And the planners looking at the application can have a general idea of how many trips certain things might generate. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 3 of 19 Pages MORROW: The reason behind setting a specific number of trips is that it does give you something that can be measured. DALY: In the history of this thing, to your knowledge has anyone ever received a citation for too many trips? MORROW: The way our Code is written now is subjective. It says, does it have an impact, does it cause noise or dust, is it out of character of the neighborhood. Say you lived out there and weren't running a home business. You could have UPS trucks delivering, delivery of a new appliance or books or whatever you get for your life, maybe for a hobby and not a business. We were trying to set levels of trips that were not outside of what could normally be expected in a household. These were the thresholds that we set that the Planning Commission recommended, that if you lived there it wouldn't be sort of beyond what you could expect a residence to generate. LUKE: Daily trips are what drive SDC's in any urban area. And it is measurable. So, if we approved a permit because someone came in and said, I'm going to run this business, perhaps a hairdressing business. I don't have any employees but I am going to have six customers a day. We figure out how many trips that is. The neighbors are aware that they have a permit that says they can have a specific number of trips as a type 2, for example. If the neighbor then notices that there are fifteen customers a day, it is very easy to document. LUKE: That's an average. You could have twelve one day and six the next day. MORROW: That's not the way it is drafted. That's an issue for discussion. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 4 of 19 Pages DALY: let me point out one flaw in your thinking. If you're going to go to a court of law and maybe you have videotape of maybe fifteen trips a day, you have to prove that those trips were related to the business. In order to enforce that, you'd have to talk to each person who stopped at the house and ask them what they are there for. That evidence would have to be presented in a court of law in order to convict someone of having too many trips a day. MORROW: As you know, our whole code enforcement system is built on not taking people to court. So it is a rare circumstance that we take people to court. We get a complaint, and evidence is presented to us as staff or to the code enforcement person that there are these many trips. We're not proving it in court. We are saying to the person, you are violating the code. LUKE: It's more than code enforcement. The whole system of law is based on the fact that the majority of people will obey the law. If someone says they are going to have six trips a day, you take them at their word that that's what they are going to do. And the majority of the people will hold to their word and do what they are supposed to do. You don't have enough cops in the world if people decide they are going to break the law. DEWOLF: We are trying to take away the subjectivity of this. That's the whole point. LUKE: Enforcement comes when this person says that I want to do this, and the planner needs something there that says, according to our numbers this is going to generate a certain number of trips. That's what you are looking at. You aren't going to have the trip police out there checking out cars. MORROW: Absolutely not. The neighbors might if it starts to get excessive. LUKE: Their interest will be raised if there is a big increase and a lot of cars. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 5 of 19 Pages DEWOLF: If it's a hairdresser who then brings in five other hairdressers and generate a lot of trips a day, they ought to be renting a space in town. And this is one thing that would help to determine that. MORROW: So that we get sort of a consensus here, or maybe not a consensus. Do you think it is worthwhile in this proposal to move from what we have now, which is completely subjective standards, to more clear and objective measurable standards? Do you think that's a good way to proceed? In general. I heard your point on traffic. That's the thrust of this proposal, is to move in that direction, to have things that are more measurable, and have standards that someone coming in can know what the standard is. DALY: In the motor vehicle law, every law in there is enforceable. To me, to create an ordinance that is basically not enforceable is a waste of time. MORROW: But it's an issue of someone coming in to ask permission for a permit to do something. LUKE: It creates a standard. DALY: If I am only allowed six trips a day, and I violate that, who is going to take me to court or enforce that rule? DEWOLF: We are, just like we do every day. I'll take you down to Bull Bat Lane in La Pine right now, and the guy who has all the axles stored in the back of his property, and the people who call me every month. You need standards established about what you are allowed, and when the neighbors get upset, they complain. That's what drives code enforcement, and what brings out Ken and Linda to deal with the issue. And unless we have something -- otherwise, it is all subjective. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 6 of 19 Pages DALY: Obviously, if you have a lot of old beat -up cars, we have an ordinance that says you can't do that, that's easy to enforce. You take a picture and you can go to court with that. Trips per day is different. How do you enforce that? DEWOLF: For instance, I apply to do something. I can't do it automatically. I have to come in and say what I am going to do. What I am going to do is a business that will generate no more than six trips a day beyond what is normal now. If three months from now my neighbors come in and say that I'm running the motor speedway out there, shouldn't we have something done. Isn't it reasonable that we try to keep neighborhoods with the kind of character that the people anticipated when they bought their homes? DALY: That's reasonable. But you have to be able to enforce it. If it goes to court, the first thing the judge is going to ask is how you know those trips weren't just relatives visiting? Did anybody ask them? The case would be thrown out that quick. DEWOLF: I'm going to be code enforcement for a minute. I'll go out there and say, you agreed to do this and you're not doing it. Most people would say, you're right, and will change. It's the rare ones; this deal in La Pine has been going on for over two years. And you see how clear that is and objective that is. MORROW: We think we will be able to enforce this. LUKE: I want to point out that it wasn't me who wanted to look at home occupations. There is a reason the planning department hasn't looked at this in a long time, because of the kinds of things we are running into. But I believe you need a standard. It is enforceable if you have to enforce it. Our hope is that the majority of the people will obey the standard because it is there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 7 of 19 Pages If you go to court, not only do you have to prove the trips; the business has some standard to prove that they weren't. There is proof needed both ways. And in code enforcement, very few cases go to court. Most are taken care of at the planning desk, through a letter, or a visit by code enforcement. Most people will obey the law. There are rare cases when they don't. You do need a standard; otherwise it is subj ective. MORROW: What I see from this is that we have two votes that there should be some clear and objective standards for trips. LUKE: I don't see Commissioner Daly saying that you don't need a clear standard. I think he's talking about enforceability. SYRNYK: The next question was regarding standards regarding vehicle parking and storage, item # 11. One of the issues that came up under this item was that the gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds was too low. Regarding item # 13, the hours of operation, there were two votes. There were two "yes" votes to reexamine the code enforcement policies and procedures, item # 17. LUKE: Again, the only reason I said "yes", is if it is occurring outside. If someone is working on the computer or phone, I don't care. When the customers are coming and going, that's the hours of operation. SYRNYK: Items # 2, 6, 9, 14, 15 and 16 are not decided or conclusive. MORROW: Regarding item #2, you need to make a call as to whether you want a two or three tier system, or whatever. DEWOLF: I'm undecided on this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 8 of 19 Pages MORROW: The rationale behind having two or three tiers is important. I think we have to have at least two tiers, because we know we have uses that have no impact and should be allowed outright. The next thing is those that might have an impact. The reason we came up with this is partly for administration purposes and how they'd be processed. Some of them have a greater impact, and the idea is that those should have more review, and people should be notified in advance so that they can comment on them and have a public hearing; those would cost more. That would be a conditional use somewhat in the traditional way. The reason we put another tier in between the outright use and the one with lots of trips and more impact, is that it has clear and objective standards. If they come in with a proposal and say they will meet certain thresholds, it might have a little impact on the neighborhood but not that much. That would be an administrative decision and would cost less. The neighbors would be notified after the decision was made, and they could appeal it. But the standards would be clear and objective. That's why we've gone to three tiers. DEWOLF: I vote yes. DALY: Regarding tier 2, there would be a $1,000 fee? MORROW: It would be cheaper. The reason for tier 2 is to have it have clear and objective standards, simpler to administer, less staff time, and it will get processed a lot faster. That is what we heard from the public, if there's very little impact. DEWOLF: I'm okay with the concept of three tiers. DALY: I like having the three tiers. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 9 of 19 Pages LUKE: I'm fine with it. Our system now is complaint driven, and we aren't going to get to a perfect system. We have to improve what we have and see how it works. Obviously it won't make everyone happy. DALY: The other issue of off-site well drillers, excavators, is different. MORROW: The next big thing is the definition issue. This is in questions 3 and 4, and gets to: if this person who is really conducting the business off site but has equipment stored on the property, does that meet the definition of a home occupation, and should this be regulated under this section of the code. Right now, our zoning code defines a home occupation as "an occupation or profession carried on within a dwelling or a residential accessory structure by a resident of the dwelling. The occupation or profession shall be secondary to the residential use." So the Planning Commission proposed in the new ordinance to keep that definition intact, but remove the words "by a resident of the dwelling" so that they could have employees. MORROW: That dwelling as it is drafted now works for type 1. So, it does not address this issue of code enforcement of people who park their vehicles of various sorts or have outside storage of equipment or materials that they use somewhere else. They're not doing the business in their home or in an accessory structure. LUKE: The fact that they are in a residential area is the problem. DALY: That depends on the amount of acreage involved. DEWOLF: Well, it depends on the kind of vehicles. MORROW: If it's a carpet cleaning van, no problem. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 10 of 19 Pages LUKE: But if it is a log truck that starts up at 3:00 a.m. -- DEWOLF: Exactly. That's what we had, a log truck next door, and he'd start it up at 5:00 a.m. A couple of acres away, it's still loud and smelly. DALY: Are we going to have the same restrictions on motorhomes? DEWOLF: Yeah, I'd get rid of every RV if it were up to me. MORROW: Back to the definition. Do you want to have a separate type of use that would regulate in some way, either property size, screening, whatever, that deals with people who do this kind of activity? The well driller, the irrigation installer who has pipes and stuff in the yard. One of the other issues related to this is whether there are employees that run the equipment that is stored on the property, who come to the property to pick up the equipment and then drive somewhere else to do the work. Or, do you not? This is a pretty big deal. Do we have a separate regulation? DEWOLF: That's my question. Do we currently have a separate regulation dealing with noise at particular hours of the day? So, if I've got a neighbor who is cranking up a vehicle, even a car, at 4 a.m. because he can't sleep and that's what is soothing to him, but he wakes up all the neighbors, do we have a noise ordinance? MORROW: There is a noise code, and it is enforced by the Sheriffs office, not by the planning department. DEWOLF: What I am getting at is the fact that there are issues here that I'm concerned about that probably don't belong in here, but belong in a disturbing the peace issue. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 11 of 19 Pages DALY: The criminal code would take care of a lot of this. MORROW: And you all have a code, a County code, about noise. We can get you a copy of it. DEWOLF: I don't really want to read it. I just want to know if it deals with the concern of noise during early hours. If it's already covered, we don't have to deal with it here. LUKE: There's a broader question than noise. Let's take a well driller. Some of it can be visual. If you live in Boonesborough for example, and you have a nice house and your driveway is very close to your neighbor's and he parks his well drilling rig right there, it's a quality of life issue for those people. There's no question about that. That's one of the big concerns. These people have six cars parked on a property and they are junkers. How do you do that? How do we define that? Do we define it as being okay to have big machines that are used offsite for gainful employment on large pieces of property? Or if they are screened? Or if no employees come to the site? What are the kinds of things that would help protect that quality of life issue? DEWOLF: I'm not so worried about the employees coming to the site necessarily. To me, this is almost like a cell tower issue. You could have a tall piece of equipment that is blocking the view that I purchased with the property because your driveway is between me and the mountains. That is a quality of life issue. View corridor ordinances usually just deal with permanent structures being built, not a well drilling rig that is going to be parked out in front. MORROW: Some of the ways to approach this, and I'm an advocate of clear and objective if we can get there in a way that is reasonable, is weight, types of vehicles, requirements for screening, property size, and so on. Those are the things that the Planning Commission dealt with. They didn't refine it in terms of the stuff used offsite. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 12 of 19 Pages LUKE: Which could include a long-haul trucker who drives five days a week and parks his rig in front of his and my house two days a week. Right. So, one way to deal with that is numbers of vehicles over a certain size. . It's okay, this is permitted outright, you can have two vehicles over a certain gross vehicle weight if you park them on your own property. That's a standard that could be enforceable and might be okay with this offsite issue. DEWOLF: To get us to the next step, I'd go back to what Dennis was talking about earlier. There is stuff that we are going to do here that is probably dumb. We don't know that it's dumb, and our intentions are good. To move this forward, I would say, yes, develop a standard like that and we'll put it in here and take it to the public. At least if we have something in writing to propose, maybe everyone here will say it sounds pretty good. But the 3,500 people that it affects aren't here. Well, within six months we are going to know. All that's fine with me. MORROW: One of the things that we heard throughout the hearings, both in front of you and in front of the Planning Commission, is that there are a lot of these things that are going on out there now. The Terrebonne one is a perfect example. It doesn't technically meet our thresholds, and we don't really know if it is even a home occupation. His testimony was, I think, he's been doing it for years, nobody has complained about it, so what is the problem. And it gets to this quality of life issue. In some areas it may not be an issue, but in other areas it will be an issue. So, this threshold question is, it ends up being a complaint -driven thing. DEWOLF: But then you are also offering the protection to people who are being good neighbors. MORROW: I think the other thing we heard, especially in front of you, was that there are a lot of businesses operating out there now that couldn't get approval, but nobody complains. And what we are trying to do in this code is make it so more of those things are legal. So, we are hearing that it would be advisable for us, as staff, to come up with a standard that deals with this offsite use. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 13 of 19 Pages DALY: I do take exception when you say that well drilling equipment is ugly. It is only ugly to a few people. It's beautiful to the guy who owns the business. DEWOLF: But if it is parked between my picture window and the mountain I want to see, then it is ugly to me. We ought to have something we can look at as a standard to discuss. DALY: If you are going to discriminate against someone who has a truck with a lumber rack on top, or the excavation guy who has bigger tools, that is basically discrimination. DEWOLF: We'll just discriminate against excavators and leave everyone else alone, how's that? MORROW: Yeah. LUKE: So, you want to discriminate against excavators? That's what you said, Catherine. •"•I For the record, I would like to clarify that was not my intention to discriminate against excavators. I was agreeing with Commissioner Daly that excavators do have bigger tools. (Laughter.) LUKE (to the audience): For those of you who have shown up thinking this is a Board of Commissioners' meeting, we are discussing some of the policy implications behind the home occupation revision ordinance. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 14 of 19 Pages MORROW: The other issue I'd like to get started on is this issue of floor area. The code now limits it to 25% of the dwelling and residential accessory building. LUKE: And the code also says that the home occupation shall be secondary to the residence. If you don't have a square footage area, there is nothing that says that 90% of the floor area couldn't be used for the business and the person lives somewhere else, for crying out loud. There's nothing that says you have to live in the house, if you don't do a square footage. If you are going to have a home on a one -acre lot in Deschutes River Woods for example, a 100 x 400 lot, and 90% of the house is used for the business and only 10% for the house, that is no longer a residence. MORROW: It says it has to be conducted by an occupant of the residence. LUKE: How long do they have to occupy it? Eight hours a day? What does it say? It doesn't say you have to live there. MORROW: So how would you propose to fix this? LUKE: It says you have to be an occupant of the building. Maybe they are occupying it eight or ten hours a day. MORROW: How would you like to clarify this? 101114a I like the square footage. I don't have a problem with it. DALY: I don't like it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 15 of 19 Pages DEWOLF: Dennis, I'm an author. And I sit at home with my laptop, and one day I'm in my office off the bedroom, and the next day I'm in the bedroom. The third day I'm in the living room. The fourth day my eight-year-old is sick, so I'm typing in her room. And then I'm in the kitchen. My occupation is taking up 100% of the house, and I live there. LUKE: And nobody cares. MORROW: But this is type 1. You have no impact. One of the suggestions was that in type 1, it doesn't matter how much of the building you use for business. In type 2 and type 3, the proposal was that on type 2, there was a cap. You couldn't use any more than 1,500 square feet of the combined area of your residence and your residential accessory building. Maybe a shop or a barn or something, or a garage. You could use no more than 1,500 square feet of all of the buildings on your property. Wei" You could use all you want. But you couldn't designate more than that as part of your operation. Which is a standard. If you are using more than that and nobody complains, nobody cares, at least you have a standard in the code that you can judge by. MORROW: So you are in favor of this cap in type 2. LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: That's why his answer says "yes", and ours say "no". And I'm fine with saying "yes" for purposes of discussion at a public hearing. But if we are going to do that, I would want to make it clear that in the definition of home occupation is that you live there, you sleep there, and you cook there. Because that is the whole point of this being a home occupation, this is where I live, my primary residence. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 16 of 19 Pages LUKE: It can't be a primary residence. What if it is a second home? What if your primary residence is in the valley and you are a part-time Realtor and you have a second home where you operate your real estate business? It doesn't have to be your primary residence. DEWOLF: I disagree. So let's have that for an argument point. MORROW: I was putting that out as a potential solution. One of the things I would caution you against is getting so specific and technical with definitions that they come back to bite us in some way we aren't expecting. DEWOLF: I don't think it is nit -picky to require that a home occupation be a home. I think that is a fundamental issue here. A second home is not a home. MORROW: And we believe that our definition today does that, and this has not been an issue. LUKE: The code says that it has to be secondary to the residence. • e So I think that part of the definition has never generated any complaints. They are using this house and they don't even live there. I don't think that's an issue. LUKE: The code doesn't say anything about a home. The code says, "The occupation shall be secondary to the residence". DEWOLF: So I'll switch mine to an "okay", for purposes of discussion. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 17 of 19 Pages MORROW: Just one more question. For type 3, the code as proposed says it is type 3 because we aren't specifying how much space you use. You have to tell us, and then we are going through this whole review process and see if the neighbors have any concerns about it. So it's wide open. Is that okay with you for type 3, or do you want to have a cap, or do you want to say anything about the floor area? The Planning Commission recommended that it be wide open, as a conditional use. But you'd have to come in and talk about where you are going to do this business and so on. The neighbors can appeal both type 2 and type 3. DEWOLF: But if we don't have an objective standard, then what is the appeal based on? MORROW: The same sort of thing that they would appeal on now; something that would have an impact or create noise, dust or odor, or could destroy the residential character of the neighborhood maybe because it is a gigantic building. At this time, the group discussed the ramifications of the impact of the issue, and decided the work session should be continued. Ms. Morrow indicated that she can send postcards to those citizens who have expressed an interest in the issue to keep them informed of the work sessions or public meetings. The idea is to have the Commissioners reach some kind of consensus where possible, and to then involve the public in the discussion. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 18 of 19 Pages DATED this 14th Day of May 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Tom DeWolf, Commissioner Attachments: Exhibit A: Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Exhibit B: Home Occupation Questionnaire — Summary of Results Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 19 of 19 Pages Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Question Daly DeWolf Luke '£ uI'MM" 2 No No No oiret�nihe ��„�#f �� `rng�reg�ialat�an MO roposed h Mg V-1 imp ifi t7on )� � �%�i�asas3cond�#�al �Qmmerlts2 We should revise the code aid the county Undecided If i'W� RN, so that non -impact home ,Are ts►n a 04161 system 4 occupations are allowed P SRI outright antl the erspermp,, as a Question Daly DeWolf Luke !2 Tfih* hers st :m Undecided Undecided Yes Shc u the ty adopt a="AR r'ee `P teMIsucl�a as the 5 MO roposed h Mg V-1 imp ifi t7on )� aid the county Undecided If i'W� RN, Yes ,Are ts►n a 04161 system 4 pemitetloutr)ght antl the erspermp,, as a Qmrx►ents Whether 2 or 3 tier, we need one set of "permitted outright" home occupations Question Daly DeWolf Luke S". lJ' iinli lon?" Should=thet , Undecided Yes Yes Work being performed off- I'm not 100% on either one site is not a home & would like to discuss this occupation nor should it be further included in the home occupation ordinance Page 1 of 7 Exhibit ,,q Page / of % Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Question Daly DeWolf Luke E4. D"W soca iiiiin„rl Yes I Undecided I Yes Comrnents��. 3 Daly DeWolf Luke I'm not convinced that all The proposal is a good Yes Yes Type 1 home occupations start certain zones need to be all indoors. conducted off-site like well I need more discussion on defnitton to address such drillers or contractors. Painters? Writers? Sculptors? Massage This is not a home therapists? occu ation in my opinion , SX' K Question Daly DeWolf Luke 5Definif�on Off site ' Undecided Yes Yes abus�ness? Shoulc! they ; to address businesses certain zones j,vco a policy i r'a conducted off-site like well I need more discussion on defnitton to address such drillers or contractors. �t%usmesses d�scnbed �n 3 abcive whe>�e most of the This is not a home �g AMs performed"off s�te� occu ation in my opinion , SX' K Cornments Would like to discuss it but I question the if it is even needed Question Daly DeWolf Luke fi: °Property► S�ze?-"Shbuld ,...,` Undecided Undecided Yes Corrinents I think Type 3 is an attempt Perhaps both. Yes in The proposal is ok to address businesses certain zones conducted off-site like well I need more discussion on drillers or contractors. this. This is not a home occu ation in my opinion Page 2 of 7 Exhibit ff Page of 7_ • Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Question Daly DeWolf Luke r�`Em�toye�st7 Shoui Yes Yes Yes ,......R, _ n Perhaps in different situations Perhaps in different situations Probably 1 don't know. It might I support the proposal depend on the situation Question Daly DeWolf Luke t3 5ht�1d the No Yes Yes .,Traffic? g daily automobile Trips No Yes county limit the size of flr &herated. byja home be limited? Aoccupatron an accessory bui ing denoted to a Horne 1fi so, sho Id the number of No Yes Yes tnps beI�mitedFby type of Hore Occupa#Tori' y0e1;�2 Ifi sn, what 5houltl this Comments? This would be impossible Current code is subjective. I support the proposal LWT ,41 g to enforce Not sure on #'s of of size1with a cap such as proposal, but theory is propgsed .under Type 2? 8 good Question Daly DeWolf Luke 9 FloorArea? Sho°uld the � No No Yes county limit the size of flr area4 a residence an .. an accessory bui ing denoted to a Horne oiccupatFor?� '�" tea' V Ifi sn, what 5houltl this Percentage with Cap — Iirnitation bel A percentage Yes of size1with a cap such as propgsed .under Type 2? 8 r,alat percen#agesuch as, proposed under Types and 3?t I#crit=these options, hotini" It depends with "no impact" world you propose such `a's business, no one cares. standard�k' We need to discuss merits of others. Exhibit A Page 3 of 7 Page 3 of 77 Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire , i✓ornments� ° '� E If the business is No restriction on I support the proposal „; conducted inside "permitted outright" occupatiorta to cohduci on someone's home, why Si#e�les bf products should we care how much �� floor area they use? Again, x � � _ impossible to Z ,z. ._,. .. _ enforce. Undecided Yes Question Daly DeWolf Luke 1n 'Safes? Shouit they, Yes Undecided Yes cciuntyallw`liot>ae� � � �. storage?S ' hould the occupatiorta to cohduci on county adapt stanParris toy ' Si#e�les bf products assoCl�t2�1Ml:h�a horns �, occupatEon���� s Leh cles associated w'th- x � � tiomeoccupat�on? " Z %fso, shoultl�Yes Undecided Yes .3nAdenta1and subordma#e�y x"fV,�.�i #o the h©rne�occu�a#►on as Should the countydlutrit the proposetl��n�C�r�tlin�ce �-� Yes, depends on zone Yes storage of,bus�ness 5 ' ueh�cles of;a certain gross, f� � k� �� ifc#; hew would©� �E prof pose€ toIlow t� site , daleS? _ .. Comments - Let's discuss further I support the proposal 10,000 lbs gvw too small The weight needs to be Question Daly DeWolf Luke 11 1/eh�cle parking & r No Yes Yes �. storage?S ' hould the county adapt stanParris toy ' address pa i Jng of business Leh cles associated w'th- tiomeoccupat�on? " t x"fV,�.�i Should the countydlutrit the No Yes, depends on zone Yes storage of,bus�ness 5 ' ueh�cles of;a certain gross, f� � k� �� �vehrcle`wergtit"� Comments 10,000 lbs gvw too small The weight needs to be � a increased to allow for most pickups Exhibit A Page 4 of 7 Page of _- Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Question Daly DeWolf Luke .°Outsfde stvrag Yes ytiould�tst�or`a � �; Yes Yes depends on the impact to house does not need to neighbors be regulated if it does �Z not bother the lf�re R °ho property1�e Yes Yes k=Shouldscieenm�be 1 Maybe Perhaps St1ttlrJdtfet� Probably Yes ase s cirr��a �a�` acres is much too large The proposal needs to a parcel. 2.5 to 5 acres is be strengthened more realistic I Question Daly DeWolf Luke i3..; Hous? _ Shauid' ,fh, . No Yes Yes Comments? E Noise is a big factor, so it What happens inside the "F depends on the impact to house does not need to neighbors be regulated if it does �Z not bother the neighborhoods Exhibit 14 Page 5 of 7 Page S of —:7 Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Question Daly DeWolf Luke "' I' speclic rn," o t1d No Undecided Yes ft i�`e,ca,antyrequlre a���l���� ` Should ceitaqnuse wqi �arirtua���mspeatAon�fo�n, `excluded from co�nstderat�on� ,� �apprbved�hom`e� f� � �� as borne occupations? elf 'yes, should #tiz o� cur uv#h Maybe gall homeoccupatori5 #had Mm F th�nkmg of requare a perrrtai {Type 2 :y and�� ` neighbors Incertatn zones? Let's talk Any fiorne o�cupabons�' P , No lf�no, what I�m�tattons �f £"� besjdes thosr; proposed . trips employees, Ci3rninents� Annual inspections require regartling screening ;0; sl I support the proposal staff. This should be you proposes ' ��' complaint driven only Question Daly DeWolf Luke i5 : Excluded Us"es7 Undecided Yes Undecided Should ceitaqnuse wqi `excluded from co�nstderat�on� as borne occupations? M If yes, what uses are you Car repair, the kinds of F th�nkmg of things that create too much :y negative impacts on ` neighbors Incertatn zones? Let's talk P , lf�no, what I�m�tattons �f £"� besjdes thosr; proposed . trips employees, regartling screening ;0; sl storage etc would �� you proposes ' ��' Comments? a The proposal is a good start Exhibit Page 6 of 7 page _ b of Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Question Daly DeWolf Luke F�rocess�rfg!� ou at Undecided iou#cJ the couWr��, Yes Undecided the count examine ��-���, ,ZS examine i#s current policy pm g ��roceS Eng ofdiidR#�oal4 relatton``to home ��� " �� pe i# rr,njunction � -W 1 ngw the rules fior homy e S=, if , �o,' ho "Id this include annual inspdctions (See t Wlat ideas tlo ou have for rnprrov�rig :compliance , Commen#s� Convince me More complicated uses should have more ' Comments I look forward to the complicated processes discussions Question Daly DeWolf Luke x'17 °Code Enforcement? Undecided Yes Yes iou#cJ the couWr��, ,ZS examine i#s current policy pm for code enfor, r --n relatton``to home ��� �� e S=, if , �o,' ho "Id this include annual inspdctions (See t Wlat ideas tlo ou have for rnprrov�rig :compliance , through code enforcement? Comments I look forward to the It's all timing... discussions Exhibit 14 Page7 of 7 page --7 of :�7— Home Occupation Questionnaire — Summary of Results 1. Areas of Consensus Question No. 1 7 12 Question Response Change Regulations Employees OK Outside Storage OK With Limits All three commissioners agreed that the County should change the existing regulations for home occupations. The commissioners also agreed the regulations should be changed so that home occupations can have employees and outside storage. 2. Two of Three Commissioners The following lists the questions and the subjects on which at least two commissioners answered "yes." Question No. Question Response 3 Change Definition of Home Occupation 4 Home Occupation In House And/Or Residential Accessory Building 5 Create Definition for "Off -Site" Home -Based Business 8 Traffic — Limit Trips 10 Incidental Sales 11 Have Standards For Vehicle Parking and Storage 13 Regulate Hours of Operation 17. Re -Examine Code Enforcement Policy Two of the three commissioners said "yes" to changing the definition of home occupation in the zoning ordinance and to limiting home occupations to a residence and/or a residential accessory structure. In addition, these commissioners agreed the county should create a definition to address home-based businesses that engaged in their business off-site, but might also store equipment and vehicles at the residence of the proprietor. With respect to off-site impacts, two of three commissioners agreed the county should limit daily trips, incidental on-site sales, parking and storing of vehicles, and hours of operation. Finally, there were two commissioners in support of re-examining the county's code enforcement policy and procedures in light of these proposed changes. Page 1 of 2 5/14/2003 Exhibit Page 0f ;;2, 3. Areas for More Discussion. The following lists the questions and the subjects of these questions that received two "undecided" or two "no" votes or different answers from each commissioner: /DPS Question No. Subject of Question 2 Adopt Three -Tier System 6 Adopt Property Size Standards 9 Limit Floor Area 14 Require Inspections 15 Excluded Certain Uses 16 Processing of Applications Page 2 of 2 5/14/2003 Exhibit K5 Page i;1, of