Loading...
2003-1176-Minutes for Meeting August 14,2003 Recorded 8/19/2003COUNTY OFFICIAL TES NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS CJ 2003-1176 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 111111111101111110111111 1111 .,, 08/19/2003 03:25:18 PM 2003-1176 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.org MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 2003 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend The purpose of the meeting was for the Board, Community Development staff and Legal Counsel to further discuss the proposed home occupation ordinance. Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Damian Syrnyk, Catherine Morrow and Tom Anderson, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Anna Johnson, Commissioners' Office; and six other citizens. No representatives of the media were present. Commissioner Luke opened the meeting at 1:20 p.m. Damian Syrnyk gave an overview of documents that he previously distributed to the Commissioners and has made available to the public. LUKE: Before you go on, I need to get this out of the way, because it might shorten the meeting a lot. I would move that we leave the home occupation ordinance just like it is. This motion died for lack of a second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 1 of 28 Pages SYRNYK: The goal of today's work session is to ask the Board for some motions and votes on the elements of the proposed ordinance. I provided you with a proposed format for today's meeting so we can go down the list of elements and look at whether there should be three types of home occupations; the proposed definition that's before you; and look at Type 1, 2 and 3 home occupations. And then we can see where these home occupations are permitted. WXW I'd like to discuss the definition first before talking about the types. I don't have any problem with the layout. SYRNYK: I did receive some feedback from Tina Lyons, who pointed out a double negative in the draft definition. LUKE: I like the idea of the new definition, and I like the idea of saying what it excludes. But when it says, "home occupations do not include an occupation or profession that" , that says to me as a lay person that they are included somewhere else. And I mentioned it to Legal Counsel. Something like, "the definition of Type 1 home occupations are meant to exclude", or something like that might work. LAURIE CRAGHEAD: May I ask for clarification? Is this definition that home occupations in general do not include these things, or is it just Type 1? The goal of including this language under the definition of home occupation is to make it clear what things would not be considered a home occupation under the zoning ordinance, and therefore not subject to the regulations we are talking about today. What we are trying to create is a threshold of what would actually be considered a home occupation. DEWOLF: That may have helped me a lot. So you are talking about the difference between a home occupation that is regulated and a home occupation that is not regulated? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 2 of 28 Pages CATHERINE MORROW: Well, I think one way to say it is that these things that are described here are not Types 1, 2 or 3; they are not regulated because we don't consider them to be home occupations. They are considered to be an accessory to the residential use of the property because they are indistinguishable from the residential use of the property. DEWOLF: So, in other words, if I'm a writer, and my occupation is at a home, writing, it's not a Type 1, 2 or 3. Where I'm confused, and where I think people might be confused, is that is a home occupation. My occupation is at home. And as a lay person, that's what I do. I think maybe we need to distinguish between home occupations that are regulated, and those that are not. MORROW: Right. That's what we are trying to accomplish through this. And we may need to say it more artfully. Maybe what Commissioner Luke has proposed will help, "are meant to be excluded from regulations as home occupations". DEWOLF: Yes. That would be great. MORROW: I think part of the reason for this is because of the statutory issue; in the resource zones, the farm and forest zones, statute says you can't allow home occupations except as a conditional use. So this was to try and allow these things that are indistinguishable in all zones, including resource zones. DEWOLF: But if we were to say, even to expand the definition to say, most people would consider any occupation in the home to be a home occupation. For the purposes of definition, something. I don't know. I just think it needs to be expanded a little bit to be clarified. CRAGHEAD: I think the statute talks about home occupations that only under certain conditions would warrant a conditional use permit. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 3 of 28 Pages MORROW: And that's part of what we are trying to clarify here. If we include some language that says, "... are meant to exclude occupations with the following characteristics". We can massage it a little bit. LUKE: Because the way it sounds now is like it is included somewhere else, and it's not. DEWOLF: I would move the acceptance of a further massaged definition along the lines of what we've discussed. CRAGUEAD: I don't think you need a motion; just a consensus. The Commissioners reached consensus on this item. LUKE: For those in the audience, we will allow some public input at the end of this work session, if you can keep it brief. Is there a consensus of the Commissioners regarding having three types of home occupations? All three Commissioners agreed. SYRNYK: Let's move on to Type 1. Do you like it as proposed or do you want to see some changes? LUKE: I'm okay with Type 1. DEWOLF: I'm okay with it, with the caveat that I believe we are going to adopt an ordinance. The thing that I want to be clear on is that I'm wide open to amending that ordinance three or six months from now if we find out that there are things in it that have unintended consequences. People will be impacted that haven't been a part of this process, and we are really moving into uncharted territory here. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 4 of 28 Pages We're trying to address some concerns, but we are going to make mistakes. I want to be clear with the folks who are in the room and you guys that I'm wide open to revisiting this when things happen as a result of what we are doing here, that we didn't intend. CRAGHEAD: Could you tell me what the difference is between a Type 1 and what is excluded from a home occupation definition? SYRNYK: The major difference between Type 1 and what I am going to call the exclusion is that Type 1 would allow customer trips to the property, up to five. There's no limitation on the amount of floor area of the home that could be used for the home occupation. And it could be carried on within a dwelling and/or a residential accessory structure. Whereas an exclusion would be limited to just somebody working out of their bedroom, for example. DEWOLF: Or in the accessory structure. Because it has no impact and nobody knows. If I want to take my laptop into my garage because my kids are too noisy in the house, I'm good to go. We're not regulating that. LUKE: It's been brought up a couple of times where a person might contract things out of their home and there's an occasional visit by an out of area employee or contractor. That would fall under no permit? SYRNYK: Yes. One of the things that we didn't include under Type 1 is that under Type 1, you can have employees or contractors that work off-site, and don't travel to the property to report for work. LUKE: But occasionally might come -- SYRNYK: We can change it to include -- Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 5 of 28 Pages LUKE: You're not going out there and cite somebody because a person occasionally comes to the home. That's indistinguishable from any visitor coming to your home. DEWOLF: I'm good with Type 1. DALY: Me, too. LUKE: Regarding Type 2, B, regarding accessory buildings. Is there anything in this that would tell somebody if they are going to do a home occupation that they can have an accessory building? I'm just asking. The very fact that you allow them to have a home occupation, Type 2, does that say they also get an accessory building? CRAGHEAD: What you are asking is if they can build an accessory building just for the home occupation. LUKE: Is there some inherent right that you can do this. CRAGHEAD: No. It depends on the zone. MORROW: Every zone can have an accessory building. It's allowed anyway. LUKE: It says, "... has adequate access and parking for employees and customers". Who makes that determination if there is no site plan? MORROW: The application would require them to submit a plot plan, and they would have to show on the plot plan where the parking would be. And it would be handled as part of the review of the Type 2. So it's not a separate site plan approval process, but you would look at the operating characteristics of the site. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 6 of 28 Pages DALY: So Type 2 is still going to be a conditional use permit. Is it still the $1,000 fee or whatever it is now? I thought we talked about lowering that fee. There would be two fees. One of the things that would stick with Type 3 is the current fee, which is over $1,000 right now. One of the goals of the Planning Commission was to have a second type of conditional use with a lower fee, and would not necessarily be subject to a public hearing, because the standards might be more clear and objective. DALY: That seems a little steep for a Type 2. MORROW: We would have a lower fee for a Type 2. It has not yet been determined what that will be, through the fee adoption process. There should be plenty of time for the fee to be figured out. 198V1 N Regarding "J", will environmental health do an inspection on the septic system, to make sure that additional employees or clients don't overload the system? SYRNYK: If we do this as a conditional use, one of the things we would do is solicit comments from the building department, environmental health, the road department, and other County, state or federal agencies that might be involved in regulating the type of activity that is proposed at the site. LUKE: Because the majority of these will not be on a sewer system, and a lot of systems are designed by a three-bedroom house and certain occupancy. DALY: Under the new system, when I was putting in septic tanks, they used to use a 750 - gallon tank for a two-bedroom house. They got away from that and now use a 1,000 -gallon tank for everything, which was adequate for a four-bedroom house or whatever. So I doubt very much if something like this would trigger any kind of expansion of the system. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 7 of 28 Pages MORROW: I don't know for sure if just employees could trigger it, but the type of use could trigger it if it has to do with food preparation or a beauty salon, something with a lot of water use. However, I do not know the answer as to whether an additional fee would be required. I would think that would probably be a condition of approval, if we got comments from environmental health that this might be an issue. It could then be a condition of approval. LUKE: In both Types 2 and 3, you talk about flashing lights and things. The other kinds of lights would be covered by our lighting ordinance anyway. I'm fine with Type 2. DEWOLF: Good. DALY: Okay. With the idea that Commissioner DeWolf said, about maybe changing it later if necessary. LUKE: Type 3, "I". Does not use materials or mechanical equipment that would be detrimental to the residential use of the property. Now, we're saying Type 3 can go on EFU and forest zones, right? SYRNYK: That's correct. LUKE: So, I would assume that this has nothing to do with equipment that would be used for either forestry practices or the use on a farm. This does not preempt those uses. MORROW: Those uses are permitted outright in those zones, forest and farming. LUKE: I'm fine with Type 3. DEWOLF: I'm not. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 8 of 28 Pages DALY: I'm not. DEWOLF: I still go back to the -- my concern is requiring twenty acres with no setbacks, doesn't really make sense to me. DALY: I agree. DEWOLF: We discussed reducing that to five acres. Even there, setbacks and screening are important aspects of something like this. We've never resolved this. But that's my concern. All the rest of it I can live with for now, and we can deal with it as issues come up. Do you want to look at a different standard from twenty? Something like five, or on a case by case basis? DALY: We discussed this last time. I mean, Commissioner DeWolf and I were both in agreement that twenty acres is much too large, and defeats the whole purpose of doing this ordinance to start with. We proposed the five acres at that time, with adequate screening or setbacks or something. CRAGHEAD: What is your proposal for adequate screening and setbacks? DEWOLF: Adequate. It's like the Supreme Court. I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it. LUKE: I'd be happy to look at different acreages, but I want to know what you are going to allow on that. Are you going to allow a dump truck and two backhoes on a five - acre site in a five -acre subdivision, with houses all around them? We're talking about putting commercial activity in a residential area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 9 of 28 Pages DALY: Not necessarily. We're talking about someone being able to take his backhoe and dump truck home at night. This is the type of occupation where you get up and you leave. There's none of that going on at the site. MORROW: It could be. LUKE: They could be working on equipment or storing materials. DALY: Well, that goes to the screening. If you are going to work on equipment, you do it inside a building. MORROW: I'd like to point out how we think this would be administered, to deal with the issue of screening. The criterion talks about outside storage. You can put vehicles, pipe, piles of bark chips, whatever your business requires outside, if you have adequate setbacks and screening. That has to do with the visual impact to neighborhoods. That's what screening is about. Now, to deal with the noise issue -- DEWOLF: Whether it is screening or noise, how does this process work? Is there a hearing? Are all the neighbors notified? MORROW: They are notified in advance of the decision. SYRNYK: When we get an application, we send out written notice to owners of record of property within a certain distance, depending on the zoning. For example, in a farm or forest zone it's 750 feet. Usually they get anywhere from ten to fourteen calendar days to submit the written comments. We're not really hard-nosed if it comes in a day or two late, especially if someone was out of town. And then before a final decision is made on the application, the principal planner, Kevin Harrison, will make a decision whether we've got something that is approvable as is or if there are issues that need to be addressed at a public hearing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 10 of 28 Pages ME" • 0 I think the issue with Type 3 is that these things will be considered on a case by case basis, considering the characteristics of the occupation, the property, the ability to screen, and the surrounding area. Because one of the things in criterion "I" says it doesn't use materials or equipment that would be detrimental to the residential use of the property or adjoining residences. So, you take "I" and you look at that in conjunction with "L", and the applicant has the burden of proof that whatever they are proposing to do, in terms of storing or using things outside, won't be detrimental to the neighbors. And that means they may have to say, I'm only going to do this stuff so far away from this neighbor's house. Or that neighbor may submit comments that say he doesn't want this going on within "X number of feet. Through the decision- making process, a condition can be applied. Maybe plant a hedge, put up a fence, or be this far away. In some cases, because the closest neighbor, or maybe EFU next door, is far away, they might be able to do it right up next to the fence and it won't be detrimental to the use of adjoining properties. Some may end up going to a Hearings Officer; and a few might eventually come to the Board on an appeal. They could still come to the Board even if they didn't go to the Hearings Officer first. DEWOLF: So, say I'm a heavy equipment operator, and I fit under Type 3; I run my business on an eight -acre parcel. And for the past fifteen years there have been no complaints. What happens to me? MORROW: We have a code enforcement manual, and it is a complaint driven system. We are not proactively going out and looking for people that are doing what you just described if there are no complaints. If a neighbor did complain, or if you applied for another land use permit, we would investigate and determine what action should be taken. DEWOLF: Am I legal now, under the current code? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 1 I of 28 Pages MORROW: If you didn't have any employees; I don't know. Our current code doesn't allow outside storage. So you wouldn't be. Also, our code right now is kind of silent on this issue of equipment parked. DALY: I might point out that the whole purpose why we are doing this anyway is because I brought up the fact -- and it has happened -- there are a lot of folks in the businesses we are discussing right now that technically are illegal. And there was one instance in Redmond not long ago where the guy was there eighteen years on his ten acres, conducting a business, and because his neighbor got made at him over a totally different reason, he turned him in. Our code enforcement went up there are put him out of business. Nobody complained for eighteen years. It is that kind of stuff that we need to address. These people need to have some kind of closure or some way to be sure that they are not going to get run off. There are an awful lot of them now. The issue is the small business entrepreneur -- backhoe and dump truck operators -- it all contributes to the high cost of housing. If you run them out of business, or force them to go buy a large, expensive piece of commercial property, then you basically are having this type of work all go to the big boys. The small guy would be out of business. So we need to try to find some common ground he re where the small guy can stay in business. I'll guarantee you that you can't go buy commercial property for a small one or two person operation and make it work. It just won't work. LUKE: I'd like to point out that our code enforcement people don't put people out of business. They simply tell them that they cannot conduct the business in the zone they are in. DEWOLF: That's true, but it doesn't change what Mike said, that people have been doing it for a long time. DALY: It could cause a whole lot of heartache out there. The fellow Mike McFarlane who testified, his neighbors love him. He plows the snow in the winter for free. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 12 of 28 Pages DEWOLF: So how do we get closure on this? DALY: I don't know. I'm comfortable with Type 3 if we limit it at five acres, with conditions. DEWOLF: Here's where the difficulty is. At twenty acres, we are going to be hurting some folks that shouldn't be hurt. At five acres, Dennis is concerned that we are encouraging -- I am not trying to create a commercial zone in all these residential areas in the County. How do you find a balance? LUKE: I'd go for ten acres. DALY: Ten acres won't work. LUKE: We could try it and see what happens. We can always revisit it. DALY: No way, Dennis. Five acres is a huge piece of property. With adequate screening, and a building to do any maintenance in, there's no way that you will annoy your neighbors. I don't understand. DEWOLF: "I" says vibration, dust, noise, smoke, odor, interference with radio or television, and other factors. With "L" we are showing adequate setbacks and/or screening or buffering -- fencing, trees, topography, existing buildings, and so on. What do you guys think? DALY: Ten acres is not much different than twenty. How many ten -acre parcels are there out there? I'm talking about trying to solve the problem with have now with a lot of folks out there on their five -acre parcels who are in business. If you don't at least go down to accommodate those folks, we have wasted our entire time here. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 13 of 28 Pages LUKE: People who own property have every right to expect that there won't be changes to the properties next to them. People who have bought homes in residential areas have every right to expect those to be residential areas. You're changing that. DALY: You aren't changing it, because the type of use that I'm talking about, they do not do their work there. As they testified in the past, just because one occupation has larger tools than another, you shouldn't discriminate. LUKE: Type 3 says they do their work there. They have employees there. DEWOLF: What is minimum lot size for EFU? MORROW: It varies depending on where you are in the County. You can have a non-farm EFU property that's small, maybe one or two acres. As you know, we have a lot of MUA-10 and RR -10 zoning. Even though it says 10, most of those lots are less than ten acres. We can get you the statistics if you want. I would venture to say that probably most of the lots in those two zones are even less than five acres. There are some five -acre subdivisions out there in those zones. But most of the properties would not be able to be a Type 3. DALY: I think we should use five acres, and can revisit it later if necessary. DEWOLF: Or we can go to ten acres, and if it is a problem, revisit it. 1, If you go to ten acres, you've wasted the entire amount of time we've spent on this. DEWOLF: I disagree. We've accomplished a lot by identifying a lot of home occupations that shouldn't be regulated at all, that currently are. That alone is worth this. The Type 1 and unregulated are slam-dunks for me, and a good result of this. I just don't know. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 14 of 28 Pages I don't want to encourage a bunch of commercial businesses in residential zones. This does deal with dust, noise, light and all that. By the same token, we end up with code enforcement because people get mad at each other. DALY: I'm basically concerned about the businesses that are already established. If a new one is going to come in somewhere, you have a tremendous process in place that's going to protect the neighbors. I'm concerned about the ones that are already established and basically nobody has complained. But, they have no assurance that they are going to be okay. As soon as there is a complaint, they'll have to go through this process that we're talking about. DEWOLF: They will anyway. They will now. DALY: They wouldn't have to, as long as it is complaint -driven. LUKE: You pass this ordinance, they are going to have to come in and get a permit. DALY: No, that's not what was discussed. It's a complaint -driven process. That doesn't change. If they come in and get a permit voluntarily, then of course we'll process it if they want that assurance. But we're not going to go out and try to find all of the businesses that fit into these criteria. LUKE: The question I would ask, since this is a conditional use, if there is a complaint, code enforcement goes out and cites them, then they will have to get into the process. And they shut them down during the process. MORROW: No, they can operate while they go through the process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 15 of 28 Pages DEWOLF: That's the way it is done now. DALY: And the point of it is, if someone can come in for the process, it at least gives someone an opportunity to continue working. DEWOLF: How difficult would it be to generate the statistics on how many lots of various sizes? •' ' • We can have our GIS do it within a few days, probably. LUKE: What if I have to come in and get a permit, if the guy two blocks down from me is doing the same thing and he's not permitted. Is that a complaint? TOM ANDERSON: No, that would not constitute a complaint. Per the procedures manual, they would have to actually fill out a complaint form and sign it in order for us to work on it. LUKE: So if a person has been operating on a ten -acre piece for ten years, there's no guarantee once a complaint is filed and they come in and apply that they will be able to stay there. ANDERSON: That's correct. DALY: No guarantee, but at least they would have the option of screening or doing some things that could make it right, provided that the property is the right size. ANDERSON: Our overriding philosophy is not to automatically cite people. We try to give them time to legitimize the use of their property. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 16 of 28 Pages DEWOLF: What we are trying to get out of here today is direction to get an ordinance written that we will eventually vote on. So I'll make a proposal here that we go with the ten acres, just to have something on paper, with this provision. That we get back from GIS the information on lots that we talked about, and reserve the right to change the acreage size. I am suggesting this not as a conclusion, but as a way to get us off the dime, and getting us more information so we can make a more knowledgeable decision when the time comes. I'm not suggesting that I would vote for one or the other. Is that okay, to get us out of here? If I can go back to the Type 3 for a minute. There's another standard under Type 3 that has a twenty -acre minimum, and that's having employees, up to five, in an EFU or forest zone. That's 3, "B". MORROW: In other words, you can have two employees of a property of any size, for some reason that we aren't certain why. The Planning Commission said statute allows up to five employees for a home occupation in an EFU or forest zone, resource zones. So the Planning Commission made the decision that they wanted to allow the maximum number of employees permitted by statute, if the land meets the size threshold. Otherwise it would be two. LUKE: Was there any discussion on the type of business that could require five employees? MORROW: It could be those five people come to pick up equipment. Or they report to the site and leave. Or they could be in a building, making wreathes or something. DEWOLF: I'm okay with leaving that for now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 17 of 28 Pages MORROW: So, what I hear that for the purposes of drafting an ordinance to bring forward for your review, we would change "L" to ten acres. We'll get you some information about the numbers of lots of various sizes in various zones, including the resource zones. And we'll draft an ordinance as we've discussed today. The next question is, do you want to have another hearing on that proposal? LUKE: Once the ordinance is written, I believe we need a public hearing. DEWOLF: Because then we have the actual document. And that's when I'm hoping that we will hear from people about the acreage and things. LUKE: I would hope that in your notices and advertising that you put in there that there is consideration of lowering the acreage to ten or five acres, so you can get people from both sides. MORROW: So the notice would say that the ordinance reduces this from twenty to ten, and that the Board might consider five. DEWOLF: Or that we have not reached consensus on that issue. Now for the table. It just describes what zones would have home occupations permitted outright as a Type 1, and/or Types 2 and 3. DEWOLF: I'm okay with the table. LUKE: Any public input? TINA LYONS: I thought this was the actual ordinance. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 18 of 28 Pages DEWOLF: We are moving towards a draft. This was another attempt to get us closer. It will be written up, and made available. That's what we will want to hear from people on. LYONS: Okay. So all public testimony that has happened up to this point regarding signs and size has not been considered yet? DEWOLF: It has been considered, and it is being proposed as it is here. And we'll have a public hearing on this as proposed. CRAGHEAD: Since you have already testified, you can ask them to refer to your previous testimony, rather than rehashing it. LYONS: If I think Type 2 should be one acre not a half -acre parcel, now is not the time to discuss that? DEWOLF: You can. At this point they are going to draft an ordinance that will say one-half acre. What would help me personally is when this whole thing is done, is if you in advance of the hearing were to put down each point, and why, and what you would like to see. It would help me to have that in advance of that hearing. LUKE: Even though one-half acre is the minimum size, to have adequate access and parking for employees and customers, and to meet requirements for your drainfield and reserve drainfield, and for your house, it will be extremely difficult to get a Type 2 business on a half -acre lot. LYONS: That's why I think it should be one acre. LUKE: They have to prove that they have the ability to do that through a site plan and all that. I think it will be difficult, but if they can do it -- maybe they only have one customer a day. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 19 of 28 Pages DALY: And maybe they have neighbors on both sides that don't care. LUKE: Well, you still have to submit a plot plan. DEWOLF: Unless they live in an area where nobody cares. The idea behind a half -acre, I believe, is to allow for the possibility that this can exist. We are trying not to impinge on people who are doing good stuff, but want the possibility of stopping people who are doing bad stuff. LYONS: Do you want it by letter or e-mail? I don't feel my personal issues have been considered. DEWOLF: There's really no way to say it other than this. That is, there are a lot of people who have input on decisions that we make. We do take it into account, but we sometimes don't agree with it and will come to a different conclusion as we are taking in the whole thing. It doesn't mean we aren't listening. It may mean that we are not agreeing; or it could mean that we just are not understanding, and you might be right six months from now, and we'll have to change the ordinance. LUKE: I have a question. We'll be passing a new ordinance. To me, it goes back to 1974 or 1973 when we adopted the statewide building code in Deschutes County, so you actually had to get a permit to build a building. To me, there's a difference between a business that is already established, and one that is established after the law is in place and they know it is in place, but they still establish it without a permit. Are those treated any differently in code enforcement? ANDERSON: In the code enforcement policy, you're not essentially establishing law. All we do is enforce the existing code - the planning, the building, the environmental health code that are in place. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 20 of 28 Pages INHA Let's go to a building permit. Let's say that I put up a building that requires a building permit, but I do it without one, and I know I need one. If you catch me, does a permit cost more? ANDERSON: It can be a double fee, if the building was knowingly constructed in violation of code. LUKE: Unless we do something like that, there is no incentive for someone to come on a new business and make the application. DEWOLF: Can we handle that in the fee schedule? LUKE: I'm not asking for a decision today, but there is no incentive for somebody to get a permit if there's no punishment for not getting one, I guess. I'm not talking about established businesses. I'm talking about a business that wasn't there ten years ago or five years ago. MORROW: We all know that some people will come in and inquire, what do I have to do to be legal. And most people are law-abiding citizens and they try to do what is right. Those people will come in and find out what the process is, and they'll go through the process. There will be others who won't do that. It will either cause problems and they'll end up in code enforcement, or they won't cause problems and we'll never know about it. I thought one of your questions was, if a use has been established, for instance some of the examples that Commissioner Daly has talked about, and it's been there for a long time and nobody has complained. It was established back under the old rules. There is a provision in the code that allows a non -conforming use to be recognized. There are criteria for how you established it and that it was legal at the time, as long as it doesn't change then it can continue to operate. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 21 of 28 Pages LUKE: I have a problem with those. What is the incentive for a person to open a new home occupation to come through your process? I►rC•;;•. They are law-abiding citizens. WIDW I would suggest that in the fee schedule, as we do in the building permit process, we might want to have a discussion about the fee rising if you are caught. CRAGHEAD: Currently there is not a fee for a permit for a home occupation. ••'• Every home occupation under our existing code is a conditional use, regardless of the scale. It requires a full-blown conditional use permit and fee. CRAGHEAD: Which means we cannot change the fee for the home occupation permit until next year. MORROW: Doesn't the Board have the ability to adopt interim fees? DEWOLF: We can add a fee. I►�• IRWIN This would be a new fee. We're having new things that didn't exist before, and I think we can make findings that we are establishing a new fee schedule for these. LUKE: You've discussed in the proposed language about there possibly being an annual inspection. MORROW: Type 2 is a "may", and Type 3 is a "shall", in the proposal. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 22 of 28 Pages LUKE: I'm not suggesting that we go into it too much today, but maybe it is a permit. If you are going to have an inspection, are you going to throw them into code enforcement? We don't have enough code enforcement officers if we start down this road. MORROW: The idea of an annual inspection is that you would confirm that they are meeting their conditions. If they are complying, there's nothing to do. If they aren't, then it is a code enforcement issue. LUKE: And who pays for that? MORROW: The code enforcement program. ANDERSON: The issue is a little bit hazy. There are currently many approved conditional uses in the County that we do not inspect on an annual basis. The procedures manual allows us to - and it is the only instance where we can proactively - monitor code compliance, on an established procedure. For instance, we have within the last few years looked at expired temporary use permits for medical hardship. Those weren't new complaints that were given to us; that was an established, proactive program. Those are the kinds of cases that we were looking for. So, if it was the direction of the Board, and if code enforcement had the ability to do it, given the current caseload, we could add some kind of an annual inspection to our workload. It would be done across the board, it would be done objectively and we wouldn't selectively pick those cases. It would be done for all of them or none at all. That would be something that we could if we were directed to do so. Those would be funded by our general code enforcement funding, which funds everything we do, whether it requires a permit or not. FRANK BRIAN: My name is Frank Brian. I don't want to rehash all of the stuff that we've talked about before. I've got a suggestion regarding the application fee. See, I'm even thinking for Type 1, you want to encourage those people to come in. And maybe you don't. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 23 of 28 Pages LUKE: No. One of the goals of Type 1 is that they would not need a permit. It would be an outright use. BRIAN: There needs to be an application. DEWOLF: For what? What are you applying for? LUKE: We can't take applications without money, because then staff time is required. •1 . I understand. That's what I'm saying. My suggestion would be a basic application fee, and then from there staff would figure out whether it is a Type 1, 2 or 3. Okay, it's up to you. SYRNYK: One of the things we have in the code now is that in certain zones, such as the residential district of La Pine, if somebody calls up and says they are thinking of writing screenplays out of my bedroom on a computer, and I may even go work outside on a laptop, is that allowed? And we can refer to the zoning code and say, yes, certain types of home occupation are allowed and you don't need any kind of a permit for that. That's the end of the communication. That's the goal behind Type 1. LUKE: I don't see how an application fee can be anything less than $25 to $50, because if you have staff doing any research at all, you have to pay for that time. The whole point was to get away from that, for things that don't disturb the neighbors, why should you even care. Sorry I brought it up. In my personal situation - the reason I'm so interested in this - I intend to conduct a business on my EFU property that is farm related to what I'm doing, growing on my farm. And I may have fifty employees. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 24 of 28 Pages And I'm growing fill flowers for the floral industry. And I'm going to need to box some; I may need to make wreaths with them; I don't know what all I will do. I want to make sure this does not affect anything related to EFU. LUKE: I asked that question earlier. I got the thing that it was not. It does not have anything to do with the EFU-related agricultural employment. DEWOLF: That's correct. It is an already outright permitted use in an EFU zone. CRAGHEAD: Although there might be some activity here that may require a conditional use permit, because it would be a commercial activity in conjunction with agricultural use. DEWOLF: Which is also covered under existing ordinances, and is not being modified by this. This doesn't change that. LUKE: Farm use on EFU ground is not a home occupation. DEWOLF: But if you are generating 700 trips per day along with your business, that's where -- LUKE: If it's a farm use, you have no control over that. DEWOLF: There you go. BRIAN: I'm just making sure you aren't subverting my rights. Thanks. The other one that appears to be a conflict, and there's really no way you can address it other than to recognize that it exists, is the fact that you have MUA-10 up against RR -5. That's a tough one. There's no way to address that. Thank you. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 25 of 28 Pages DENIMS COLLINS: I guess I don't understand the chart. On EFU, you're not allowed a Type I? SYRNYK: That's right. COLLINS: Why in MUA-10 you are allowed Type 1, and one you aren't. SYRNYK: This might help explain. This is a chart that I originally created as a reference, so that everywhere we would be allowing a home occupation would be listed. So, it's just the way the columns are formatted. For example, an MUA-10, the final ordinance for the Board to consider will have a Type 1 home occupation added to the list of permitted uses in the MUA-10 zone. I'll also make sure that Type 2 and Type 3 home occupations are added to the list of conditional uses permitted in the MUA-10 zone. LUKE: Type 1 is not allowed on EFU ground under state law, not County law. SYRNYK: That's correct. And in the forest zones. COLLINS: So when you make your final document, will there be a difference from MUA-10 to EFU, or is this going to be set up for acreage for all of the zones, or will the zones have any bearing. DEWOLF: The way that it is being written up is that right now, the resource zones, forest and EFU, would be twenty acres, and the others at ten acres. We're not saying that we are adopting that, but we just want to have something in writing. LUKE: I thought twenty acres deals with the number of employees. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 26 of 28 Pages There are two standards we're talking about here. The twenty -acre standard that is being left alone is for employees in EFU and forest zones. Up to five employees. The outdoor storage standard that we're talking about that will come back to the Board is ten acres, and that would apply to any zone you are in. If someone is looking for applying for a Type 3 conditional use permit for a home occupation and want to have outside storage, they would need to have ten acres under the ordinance that is going to come back to the Board. COLLINS: The only other thing I wanted to say is that it does make sense, what you said about there being a reason why somebody comes and gets a permit. Whether it is hitting them with double fees, or something. Personally, I would rather come in and get it, but if there are no consequences, some people will just wait it out. I think that's a good point. LUKE: Those that are already in place, they would get them under a complaint process. But the new ones need some kind of incentive. DALY: The biggest reason for getting a permit is that you may want to sell your property someday, and won't want to have an illegal building. LUKE: Thanks to the public for attending all of these meetings. That's to staff for all their hard work. DALY: I have a question. Going back to the ten acres and five acres. Are there any ten - acre subdivisions? There are a few. But they are not the norm. What we will ask the GIS folks to do is count EFU, forest, RR -10, MUA-10 and list what the various sizes of lots are - 20 or more, 10 to 20, 5 to 10, 5 or fewer, so you can see the range. DALY: There are a lot of five -acre subdivisions. That was often the minimum size when subdivisions were formed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 27 of 28 Pages LUKE: At the next Board meeting, I'd like to see a definition of home occupation. DEWOLF: Given everyone's schedules for August and September, I believe we are looking at the hearing happening sometime in October. Being no further discussion at this time, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m. DATED this 14th Day of August 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. 1-07 Dennis R. Luke, Chair Tom DeWo f, Commissioner ATTEST: Michael M. baly, Co issioner Recording Secretary Attachments Exhibit A: Staff Report (1 page) Exhibit B: Draft Home Occupation Definition (4 pages) Exhibit C: Summary Table of Amendments (1 page) Exhibit D: Additional Public Testimony from Tina Lyons, dated July 22, 2003 (3 pages) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Thursday, August 14, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 28 of 28 Pages Community Development Department (� Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Damian Syrnyk, Senior Planne DATE: August 7, 2003 SUBJECT: August 14, 2003 work session on Ordinance 2003-003, regarding home occupations in Deschutes County (File No. TA -02-12) The Board will hold a work session scheduled for Thursday, August 14, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. to continue deliberations on the proposed home occupations ordinance. An extra copy of the "Board Hearing Draft" dated July 15, 2003 is enclosed for your review before the work session. Staff has made no changes to this draft since the July 22 public hearing. You will also find enclosed copies of the letters submitted as of the date of this report and a proposal for some additional changes to the text of the Zoning Ordinance regarding how the County defines a home occupation. One of the issues raised at the July 22 public hearing, and in subsequent communications to staff, was what should constitute a home occupation. You will find enclosed a copy of the current definition of home occupation along with proposed changes to the definition before the Board in the June 11, 2003 Staff Report. Staff proposes creating a threshold on what would qualify as a home occupation to distinguish between what uses qualify as a home occupation from occupations or professions carried on within a dwelling that have characteristics indistinguishable from the residential use of a dwelling. One of the purposes for making this proposal is to provide an avenue through which citizens could conduct occupations or professions from homes in exclusive farm use and forest zones without having to obtain a conditional use permit. You may recall that state law requires counties to review and approve a land use permit, such as a conditional use permit, for home occupations in resource zones. You will also find enclosed two additional documents. The first is a table the outlines the zones that would be amended through the proposed ordinance with the addition of a Type 1 and/or Type 2/Type 3 home occupation. The second is a letter from Tina Lyons submitted into the July 22, 2003 hearing record. Staff has not received any additional written testimony as of the date of this memorandum. Please contact me at 385-1709 or at dam ians cD-co.deschutes.or.us if I can answer any questions before the work session. /DPS Enclosures Quality Services Performed with Pride Exhibit —Page / of �_ Board Hearing Draft on Home Occupations July 15, 2003 18.116.280. Home Occupations. A. Purpose. The purposes of this section are: 1. To provide a process through which citizens of unincorporated Deschutes County can establish home occupations. 2. To ensure home occupations are established that are compatible with residences and other land uses. B. Types. The following describes the types of home occupations allowed in Deschutes County: Type 1. Where permitted outright, a Type 1 home occupation shall be subject to the following limitations. A Type 1 home occupation is one that: a. Is carried on within a dwelling and/or a residential accessory structure only by members of the family who reside in the dwelling, excluding employees and/or contractors who work off-site and do not travel to the subject property to report for work; b. Does not generate more than five (5) trips per day to the site while serving clients or customers onsite, not including parcel delivery services; c. Does not produce odor, dust, glare, flashing lights or noise; d. Does not involve the on -premise display or sale of stock in trade, and; e. Does not involve the use of a sign to advertise the location of the home occupation. 2. Type 2. Type 2 home occupations may be allowed as conditional uses with an approved conditional use permit. Such uses are subject to the standards of the zone in which the home occupation will be established and the following criteria. A Type 2 home occupation is not subject to the approval criteria for a conditional use permit in DCC Chapter 18.128 or site plan review under DCC Chapter 18.124. A Type 2 home occupation is one that: a. Is conducted from a property that is at least one-half (1/2) acre in size. b. Is carried on within a dwelling and/or an accessory building by members of the family who reside in the dwelling and no more than two (2) employees who report to the property for work. c. Does not occupy more than 25 percent of the combined floor area of the dwelling, including attached garage, and one (1) accessory building. The maximum amount of floor area that can be devoted to a Type 2 home occupation is 1,500 square feet. d. Includes on-site sales of products associated with the home occupation that are incidental and subordinate to the home occupation. e. Creates no more than ten (10) vehicle trips to the site per day by employees, customers or clients, not including parcel delivery services. f. Has adequate access and parking for employees and customers. g. Is limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, for operation. h. Does not involve any external changes to the dwelling or the accessory building in which the home occupation will be established that would give any building an outward appearance of a business. Any structure on the property where the home occupation is conducted shall be of a type normally associated with the zone where it is located. No structural alterations affecting the residential appearance of a building shall be allowed to accommodate the home occupation except when otherwise required by law, and then only after the plans for such alterations have been reviewed and approved by the planning division. i. Does not use materials or mechanical equipment which will be detrimental to the residential use of the property or adjoining residences because of vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, light, interference with radio or television reception or other factors. J. Complies with all requirements of the Deschutes County Building and Safety Division and the Environmental Health Division and any other applicable state or federal laws. For July 22, 2003 Public Hearing Pagel of 3 Exhibit Page / of Board Hearing Draft on Home Occupations July 15, 2003 Compliance with the requirements of the County Building and Safety Division shall include meeting all building occupancy classification requirements of the state -adopted building code. k. May have one (1) sign, ground -mounted or wall -mounted, as defined in DCC Chapter 15.08, that is no more than three (3) square feet in area, non -illuminated, and located on the property from which home occupation will operate. Such signs do not require a sign permit under DCC Chapter 15.08, Signs. 1. May be subject to an annual inspection, as a condition of an approval, to ensure compliance with the conditions of an approved conditional use permit. in. May not include outside storage of equipment or materials used in operation of the home occupation. n. The following uses are not allowed as Type 2 home occupations: i. Repair, towing, or storage of motorized vehicles and equipment, including but not limited to automobiles, trucks, trailers, recreational vehicles, and boats. ii. Detailing, painting, and upholstery of motorized vehicles. iii. Businesses that store and use vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than or equal to 15,000 pounds or equipment with an operating weight greater than or equal to 3,000 pounds. iv. Appliance repair. v. Welding or machine shop. 3. Type 3. Type 3 home occupations may be allowed as conditional uses with an approved conditional use permit. Such uses are subject to the standards of the zone in which the home occupation will be established, the applicable provisions of DCC Chapter 18.128, and the following limitations. A Type 3 home occupation is not subject to site plan review under DCC Chapter 18.124. A Type 3 home occupation is one that: a. Is conducted in such a way that it is compatible with the residential character, or in resource zones, resource -oriented character of its location. b. Is carried on within a dwelling and/or an accessory building by members of the family who reside in the dwelling and no more than two (2) employees who report to the property for work. A home occupation proposed on property that is located in an EFU or Forest Zone and that is at least 20 acres in size may have not more than five (5) employees who report to the property for work. c. Does not occupy more than 35 percent of the combined floor area of the dwelling, including an attached garage, and one (1) accessory building. d. Includes on-site sales of products associated with the home occupation that are incidental and subordinate to the home occupation. e. Creates traffic that will not be of a volume or frequency that will cause disturbance or inconvenience to nearby land uses. A Type 3 home occupation can create no more than twenty (20) vehicle trips to the site per day by employees, customers or clients. f. Has adequate access and parking for employees and customers. Vehicles used by the operator to conduct the home occupation that have a gross vehicle weight of 15,000 or more pounds must be parked in a garage, a detached building, or screened according to the requirements of DCC 18.116.280(B)(3)(1)(i) through (v). g. Is limited to the hours and days of operation proposed by an applicant and approved with a conditional use permit. h. Does not involve any external changes to the dwelling in which the home occupation will be established that would give the dwelling an outward appearance of a business. Any structure on the property where the home occupation is conducted shall be of a type normally associated with the zone where it is located. No structural alterations affecting the residential For July 22, 2003 Public Hearing Page 2 of 3 Exhibit 16 Page 0--L— o� , Board Hearing Draft on Home Occupations July 15, 2003 appearance of a building shall be allowed to accommodate the home occupation except when otherwise required by law, and then only after the plans for such alterations have been reviewed and approved by the planning division. i. Does not use materials or mechanical equipment which will be detrimental to the residential use of the property or adjoining residences because of vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, interference with radio or television reception or other factors. j. Complies with all requirements of the Deschutes County Building and Safety Division and the Environmental Health Division and any other applicable state or federal laws. Compliance with the requirements of the County Building and Safety Division shall include meeting all building occupancy classification requirements of the state -adopted building code. k. May have one (1) sign, ground -mounted or wall -mounted, as defined in DCC Chapter 15.08, that is no more than three (3) square feet in area, non -illuminated, and located on the property from which home occupation will operate. Such signs do not require a sign permit under DCC Chapter 15.08, Signs. 1. May include outside storage of equipment and materials if the subject property is 20 or more acres in size and the applicant shows that adequate setbacks and/or screening or buffering is provided, and will be maintained, to screen materials and equipment from adjacent properties. The form of screening may include, but is not limited to: i. A sight -obscuring fence, as defined by this title. ii. Intervening mature tree cover. iii. Topography. iv. Existing buildings on site. v. Introduced landscape materials, including, but not limited to, trees and/or shrubs on an earthen berm. in. The home occupation approval shall be reviewed every 12 months by the planning division to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section and the conditions required for approval of the use. For July 22, 2003 Public Hearing Page 3 of 3 Exhibit Page ,3 of For Board of Commissioners Work Session – August 14, 2003 Ordinance 2003-003 (File TA -02-12) – Home Occupations 1. Existing Definition of Home Occupation (DCC 18.04.030) "Home occupation" means 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. 2. Proposed Draft of New Home Occupation Definition. The language proposed to the Board through the June 11, 2003 Staff report shown in underline. Changes proposed through the August 7, 2003 memorandum to the Board shown in underline with italics. "Home occupation" means an occupation or profession carried on within a dwelling and/or a residential accessory structure by a member of the family residing in the dwelling. The occupation or profession shall be secondary to the residential use of the dwelling and/or the residential accessory structure. A limited number of employees who are not residents of the dwelling may be allowed for certain types of home occupations. Home occupation does not include an occupation or profession that. 1) is carried on within a dwelling only by members of the family who reside in the dwelling: 2) does not serve clients or customers on-site: 3) does not occupy more than 25 percent of the floor area of the dwelling: 4) does not have operating characteristics that produce odor, dust -glare, flashing lights or noise. and: 5) does not include the on -premise advertisement, display or sale of stock in trade. Such activities related to the conduct of an occupation or profession from within a dwelling that are indistinguishable from the residential use of the dwelling shall not be considered home occupations but shall be considered accessory to the residential use of a dwelling. 3. Proposed Addition to New DCC Section 18.116.280, Home Occupations C. Exceptions. Occupations or professions carried on within a dwelling that have the following characteristics and that are indistinguishable from the residential use of a single family dwelling are not considered home occupations, as defined by this title, and therefore are not regulated under this section. Such occupations or professions: 1) Are carried on within a dwelling only by members of the family who reside in the dwelling; 2) Do not serve clients or customers on-site; 3) Do not occupy more than 25 percent of the floor area of the dwelling; 4) Do not have operating characteristics that produce odor, dust, glare, flashing lights or noise, and; 4) Do not include the on -premise advertisement, display or sale of stock in trade. Page 1 of 1 Exhibit 6 Page =.4_ of -J — ., Ordinance 2003-003 - Summary Table of Amendments Ord Section # DCC Chapter/ Section Zone/ Rural Community Exhi- bit Form of Amendment ADDED ADDED OTHER Type 1 home Type 2 or Type 3 CHANGES occupation, subject to home occupation, DCC 18.116.280. subject to DCC 18.116.280. 1 18.04.030 Definition A Definition - Home Occupation 2 18.16.030 EFU B X 3 18.32.020 MUM 0 C X 4 18.32.030 MUA10 D X 5 18.36.030 F1 E X 6 18.40.030 F2 F X 7 18.60.020 RR10 G X 8 18.60.030 RR10 H X 9 18.61.030 LaPine I X X 10 18.61.050 LaPine J X X 11 18.65.020 RSC K X X 12 18.65.022 Alfalfa RSC L X 13 18.66.020 Terrebonne M X X 14 18.66.030 Terrebonne N X X 15 18.66.040 Terrebonne O X X 16 18.66.050 Terrebonne P X X 17 18.67.020 Tumalo Q X X 18 18.67.030 Tumalo R X X 19 18.67.040 Tumalo S X X 20 18.74.020 Rural Commercial T X X 21 18.108.030 Sunriver U X 22 18.108.040 Sunriver V X 23 18.108.050 Sunriver W X 24 18.116 Supplementary Provisions X Adds DCC 18.116.280 25 18.128 Conditional Use Cha ter Y A18.128.110 Repeals Page 1 of 1 Exhibit (2 - Page _� of- Su�vm;{tevf! 22, Z403 PUBLIC TESTIMONY JULY 22 2003 PUBLIC HEARING ON HOME OCCUPATIONS Tina Lyons PO Box 2249 Lapine, OR 97739 (541) 536-5466 -Our garbage company sent out a flyer with tips on proper disposal which includes "NO commercial/business waste, medical waste, radioactive waste or explosives." If businesses are located in residential areas, this might be a problem we haven't considered yet. -Again, the infrastructure of the downtown cores are going to be jeaopardized by allowing home occupations in rural residential areas. I will be referring to the July 15 Staff Report, the Minutes of the June 22 Work Session and the Board Hearing Draft in the following comments. TYPE 1 1) Staff report and June 22 Minutes both indicate that Type I will have no impacts. How can anyone say 5 trips a day has no impact? The traffic and dust alone may ruin some of the quality of life for other residents. The trips generate dust on our non -paved roads, no matter how slow you ga. Yet in the proposed ordinance, no dust can be produced by the home occupation. If the trips to the home occupation produce dust, then isn't the home occupation producing dust? Therefore type 1 home occupations cannot be granted outright to people who reside on non -paved roads. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the county does not maintain the non -paved roads in rural Deschutes County. How can the county allow business activity on privately maintained roads? Does the county have that kind of legal jurisdiction? I posed this question in the last public hearing and the Planning Division said the impact on the privately maintained roads would be addressed in the CUP. But no CUP is necessary for Type 1 and so Exhibit D Page of this issue is not being addressed. "'The language needs to be changed to 0 trips per day for Type 1, or allow some trips per day on only county -maintained roads. 2) By deleting the 25% floor space requirement, there would not be a measureable standard. If It was limited to 1500 sq. ft., then when the business grew to Type 2, it would be an easier transition. 3) Building and safety codes along with Enviornmental Health standards should also be required to be met in Type 1 to ensure public safety. 4)The intention of Type 1 is to capture sole proprietors, although that is not the language in the proposed code. TYPE 2 1) 1 think the language "shall be conducted in such a way that is compatible with the residential character, or in resource zones, resource -oriented character of its location" should still be included in the code, and not deleted. This is a fundamental issue that should be considered with a CUP and an appeal process. 2) Regarding item 2 a) A 112 acre is not large enough because many of the existing 1!2 acre parcels have standard septic systems on them and they are not 100' from the wells. This is why the "new neighborhood" is being developed. Public health safety regarding water quality on 1/2 acre parcels is an area of great concern. There is not enough room on a 1/2 acre parcel, given the septic system and reserve area required for "adequate parking." ***The language needs to be changed to "at least 1 acre in size." 3) Regarding Type 2, item 2 h) where it talks about "no external changes.... that would give the outward appearance of a business" is good, but it conflicts with item 2 k) which allows a sign. Why allow a sign if you don't want it to look like a business? Signs destroy the rural character. '"The language in 2 k) should be changed to read, no sign is permitted. 4) The discussion about other requirements by the Fire Dept., for example, does need to be addressed. My neighbors got a Facilities Permit from the Oregon Board of Health Licensing, which states they also need to follow city or County regulations as well. But the State did not notify the County of the licensure, and Exhibit b Page P- of there is no communication or continuity. Agencies do need to notify eachother of what's happening in the different zones, so that all applicable laws will be followed. 5) Trips that are generated by home occupations on privately maintained roads needs to be addressed. TYPE 3 1) Trips that are generated by home occupations home occupations on privately maintained roads needs to be addressed. IN CONCLUSION: The Code Enforcement is currently not acting on any Complaints on home occupations, including mine. Linda Larson says she has about 5 complaints that are waiting for the home occupation regulations "be relaxed." In the minutes from the last work session, Mr. DeWolf told Frank Pennock to "file a code enforcement complaint and we'll follow-up on it. That isn't going to change." Mr. Luke said "you might as well start it now, and at the end of a year you'll be satisfied." This does not appear to be true. Why aren't the codes being enforced now? With Code Enforcement not enforcing the current code, we are at a stand still. I believe this applies undue pressure to the Commissioners to make a decision soon. I do not think it is wise to change the laws and see how it goes and then change them again. Careful thought is necessary to avoid appeals and legal procedings. The laws don't have to change, this is an exploratory process, one that is very complicated, affecting so many different types of people and their desires. I go back to the State's original philosophy, of keeping the commercial areas commercial and rural areas rural. Thank you so much for your consideration. �-- Exhibit '-p Page __73 of --:3