Loading...
2003-1375-Minutes for Meeting October 28,2003 Recorded 11/4/2003COUNTY OFFICIAL TES NANCYUBLANKENSHIP;, COUNTY CLERKDS CJ 100381315 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1110412003 04:31;50 PM 111111Jill 1111111111111111 03-1 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE - L C- 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 PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 289 2003 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend The purpose of the meeting was for the Board to take public testimony on a proposed home occupation ordinance. Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Damian Syrnyk and Tom Anderson, Community Development Department; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; media representative Barney Lerten of bend com and The Bugle; and eighteen other citizens. Barney. Commissioner Luke opened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Luke gave a brief summary of the procedure to be followed during the hearing. He added that if anyone wants to testify, or even if they simply want to be on the mailing list regarding the proposed ordinance, to please complete the sign -in sheet. Damian Syrnyk presented an overview of the reason for the hearing and the documents that he previously distributed to the Commissioners and has made available to the public. Copies of these documents are attached. Exhibit A: Staff Report (9 pages) Exhibit B: Current Rules on Home Occupations (1 page) Exhibit C: Proposed Changes to Definition of Home Occupations (1 page) He added that a copy of the draft ordinance itself is available in the room for citizens to review. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 1 of 36 Pages SYRNYK: This matter before the Board is a legislative proposal. What I mean by that is that we are looking at proposed changes to the Deschutes County Code. The particular part of the Code that we're talking about is known as the County Zoning Ordinance, which happens to be Title 18 of the County Code. What's before the Board are proposed changes to the existing regulations that we have in effect now on home occupations. One of the things I wanted to point out up front is that our zoning ordinance defines a home occupation as "an occupation or profession that's carried on within a dwelling or a residential accessory structure by a resident of the dwelling." What we are talking about tonight would not include certain uses that are regulated under different parts of the zoning ordinance or not regulated at all because of some kind of preemption of State law. These uses include things like bed and breakfast inns, residential homes and residential facilities which might allow for adult foster care, family child care providers, farm use, commercial activities in conjunction with farm use, and organizations like churches and schools. LUKE: Adult foster care up to five? SYRNYK: There are two categories in the zoning ordinance. The one I mentioned, residential home, which allows up to five; a residential facility would allow between six and fifteen. LUKE: That has to be a separate license from the State? SYRNYK: I believe it's through the State Department of Human Services. DALY: What about bed and breakfast inns? Say that again. SYRNYK: Bed and breakfast inns are already regulated under the County's zoning ordinance. In several zoning districts you can establish a bed and breakfast with a conditional use permit. They are treated differently than home occupations. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 2 of 36 Pages This is a process of the Planning Commission that started back in November of last year. They held two public hearings on this matter, in November of last year and January of this year, trying to get input from folks on what they liked and didn't like, what changes the County should consider with respect to the existing regulations on home occupations. Right now I'll refer you to the handout that says "current rules of home occupations". Home occupations are treated two ways under the zoning ordinance. In most zones, like EFU, rural residential and forest zones, a home occupation may be allowed with a conditional use permit. That's a permit that requires an application to the Planning Division, and there's an associated fee that right now is about $1,300. It also involves public notice to the neighbors. Right now, with a home occupation conditional use permit, somebody can have customers come into their property, but they can't have any employees. The other type of home occupation that's allowed under the County's Code is a category that's permitted outright - meaning there is no permit required - but this is limited to several residential districts in some of the unincorporated communities such as La Pine and Terrebonne. Those standards are listed on the handout under "permitted outright" section. LUKE: Why are those areas separated out? SYRNYK: Towards the mid -1990's, the County began the process of updating the planning and zoning for unincorporated communities. That was due in part to a change in State law that allowed counties to treat unincorporated communities like cities, to make sure they have residential areas, commercial districts and industrial districts. One of the things that was added in as those changes were made was the ability for someone in those unincorporated communities to have a home occupation without having to pay for a conditional use permit. The model that the County followed is very similar to what the City of Bend allows in its residential districts. But it is pretty limiting, as you can see. It's only allowed to be carried on within the dwelling, they cannot serve any clients or customers on site, and they can only use so much of their dwelling for the business. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 3 of 36 Pages So that was the starting point in this process for looking to update the rules. After the Planning Commission had finished reviewing this and forwarded on a recommendation to the Board, the Board held two public hearings and at least four work sessions, getting input from folks on the proposal. I wanted to point out that much of what you'll see in that draft was the Planning Commission's recommendation with changes that have come about from the Board of Commissioners and public testimony. What I'd like to do right now before opening it up for any questions or testimony is to summarize or highlighting the major aspects of each change. I'm going to start with the definition of home occupation. There are several significant changes that you'll see proposed for our definition of home occupation. One is that, as proposed, it could be conducted within someone's home and/or accessory building. So it could be an and/or or both type of scenario, depending on what they are doing. The proposed definition also allows a certain number of limited employees. One of the most significant changes is that the definition includes a new threshold of a home occupation that would not be regulated under these changes. As the model for these changes, what is before you is almost the same standards that we use now. This threshold that's proposed essential mirrors what we have in our Code right now for home occupations that are allowed outright in unincorporated communities. The idea behind creating this threshold is that if someone is conducting a business out of their home and it has characteristics that are really indistinguishable from what they might normally do in their home, then we would not treat it as a home occupation that would be regulated. I think the example that we've used more than once is this idea of the screenwriter who works on a computer in his or her home, corresponds with clients via e-mail, but engages in no other activities that would distinguish it from normal residential use of the dwelling. LUKE: if a person has an occasional person come to their home, just like you would for any other kind of guest, that's not a problem. DEWOLF: The thing that it comes down to is "indistinguishable from the residential use of the dwelling". Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 4 of 36 Pages SYRNYK: That's the key phrase that I wanted to get on the record. With respect to the types of home occupations I've mentioned, one of the things the Planning Commission did was to propose the expansion of the categories of home occupations that are allowed under the Code. As I mentioned, right now in most zones you get a conditional use permit to run a home occupation. If you're in a residential district of an unincorporated community like La Pine, you can do that without a conditional use permit. What the Planning Commission got around to doing was trying to create a middle category that would require a conditional use permit, but would be subject to more clear and objective standards. Therefore, they might not need the same level of review, and might have a more expedited process and therefore a lower fee. It would also expand what is allowed in the Code with the two types that I've mentioned that are permitted outright and permitted conditionally. I'm going to highlight some of the proposed changes that you'll see in the staff report document in the section that says "Board hearing draft on home occupations", and is dated October 21, 2003. This is the same version that the Board last looked at in August. The only change you're going to see is that there is no highlighting on elements that you were discussing amongst yourselves. But all of the language is essentially the same. The first category that you see, type 1, would replace what is allowed in the Code right now where home occupations are permitted outright. What's new with this proposal is that this type of home occupation would also be added to the rural residential zone, the multiple use agricultural zone, and the residential districts of Sunriver where this kind of home occupation is not already allowed. What's different between this and what is allowed right now is that there is no limitation on the amount of floor area that is used for the home occupation. It does allow a limited number of customer trips to the site, and it could be carried on within a dwelling and/or residential accessory structure. One of the things that I wanted to include for your consideration this evening is the limitation right now that there is no employees who travel to the site to report for work. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 5 of 36 Pages Since we last met on this in August, there was an article in the Bulletin last Sunday that raised a legitimate question about folks who might work out of their homes who might have the need for maybe one employee, or maybe occasional customer visitors, or maybe both. One of the things I was going to recommend for your consideration is this idea of possibly allowing, with a type 1 home occupation, maybe one employee, or one employee and occasional visits, or some combination thereof. DEWOLF: How do you define it? SYRNYK: That's up for discussion. DEWOLF: Right. But if you want us to consider it, you must have something in mind. Are you restricting it to one employee, or are you restricting the number of trips, and are you defining the times that they are allowed to be coming from offsite to the site? SYRNYK: think all of those things can be discussed. I don't have a recommendation, just ideas or suggestions. LUKE: On the types 1, 2 and 3, how does the County code interact with CC&R's (covenants, conditions and restrictions)? Sunriver has CC&R's that restrict the amount of activity that can go on in certain residential areas. SYRNYK: These would be independent of CC&R's, since the County does not have the authority to administer CC&R's. DEWOLF: CC&R's can be more restrictive, because they are in a deed that you sign when you purchase your home. SYRNYK: They could be. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 6 of 36 Pages LUKE: That's a civil action, and a violation of this could be a code enforcement action. LAURIE CRAGHEAD: That is accurate. But CC&R's can also be less restrictive, and they would not be applicable. For example, some CC&R's allow for shake roofs, yet if the house is in the wildfire zone in Deschutes County, they can't install a shake roof. We do not enforce CC&R's. DEWOLF: But if our Code is more restrictive than CC&R's, our Code would take precedent. SYRNYK: The new category that's identified as type 2 was recommended by the Planning Commission. Their goal was to have a category of conditional use for a home occupation that would allow employees, a larger number of customer trips, and certain limited hours of operation, with the idea that standards would be more clear and objective. If that was the case, there might be a lower fee. One of the things that came out in the Bulletin article was that this type of permit would be charged the same that we charge any kind of a conditional use of home occupation today, which is $1,380. One of the goals of the Planning Commission was something that would be much less expensive, since the regulations weren't as strict and there might be a more expedited process and maybe more limited public notice. If the Board does get to a point of looking at adopting some kind of a type 2 home occupation, you'll need to make some subsequent decisions on whether it would be treated as a conditional use, and whether we would provide the regular notice or a more limited notice. That might mean a lower fee. DEWOLF: Do you have a variety of options regarding those fees? SYRNYK: Not before you right now. The fee of $1,380 was intended to cover two notices to the neighbors - the first to solicit their input, and the second notice to inform them of the decision that was made. It is also intended to cover the cost of a Hearings Officer if the matter was controversial. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 7 of 36 Pages If you were looking at a type 2 conditional use with maybe a notice of the decision, you'd be looking at cutting that fee in half or maybe by two-thirds, depending on the criteria and the process used. DEWOLF: Do we charge that $1,380 even if it doesn't go before the Hearings Officer? SYRNYK: That's correct. LUKE: Type 1 is not even an administrative decision, is that true? SYRNYK: Correct. There would be no fee. LUKE: In type 2 there could be because of the conditional use process and how much notice we'd want to give the neighbors. SYRNYK: That's correct. Right now, we were looking at a fee of possibly $450 or $500. That could be more or less, depending on what is adopted and how the requests are reviewed. The last category of home occupation, type 3, is based on what is already allowed in the zoning ordinance. There are two major changes proposed. One is, unlike what we have right now in the Code, this type of conditional use would allow employees. It would allow up to two, but if the property was in a farm or forest zone and is at least twenty acres, they could have up to five employees. That's a limitation that already exists in State law right now in farm and forest zones. The multiple use agricultural zone is actually considered a rural residential zone, not a farm zone. This is an item that was debated a lot by the Planning Commission. Most MUA properties are ten acres or less. The Planning Commission debated this quite a bit because there was some thinking that under a type 3, you should be allowed more employees than a type 2. They also should be compatible with other land uses in the area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 8 of 36 Pages Where the Planning Commission ended up was allowing up to five employees but only under limited circumstances, such as the property might be zoned farm or forest use and the property is at least twenty acres in size. DEWOLF: So one of the things that we didn't get in the information in August regarding RR - 10 and MUA-10, although we do know there are 514 tax lots of ten acres or more, what we don't know is how many are twenty acres or more. SYRNYK: I don't have that information, but can get it. Regarding the type 3 home occupation, this version would allow the outside storage of equipment and materials. This is also something that has been debated and addressed in testimony. One of the things the Planning Commission originally proposed is requiring property to be at least twenty acres in size in order to have outside storage. What went along with that is making sure there are adequate setbacks and screening or buffering. After the Board looked at this, it considered changing it to ten acres or more, at least for the purposes of this hearing. I also wanted to highlight a couple of things about types 2 and 3. Under both, signs would be allowed for advertising. What is different is that there would be no sign permit required. Right now sign permits are required, and the fee is $185. The other thing is that under type 2, an inspection may be required as a condition of approval. With type 3, that would be a requirement. I believe the Board looked at that from the standpoint of requiring inspections if there is a complaint. LUKE: What is the fee for a type 3? SYRNYK: It could be $1,380 as it is now, but that could be lower or higher depending on what the Board thinks. It covers a broad category, including home occupations. DALY: Under the present Code, a conditional use permit would not allow these uses that are proposed now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 9 of 36 Pages SYRNYK: Under the current Code, they could not have employees or outside storage. LUKE: This is a formal hearing, but we want to as open as possible. Are there any questions before testimony starts on what Damian explained? MARVIN BENDER: I live at 3393 NW Sedgewick, Bend. I was just wondering on these conditional use permits, if this goes through like you say and you were to sell your land, would the use permit continue on? SYRNYK: The conditional use permit is based on a specific proposal. DEWOLF: Right, but do they go with the property or business, if the business stays the same? SYRNYK: The procedures ordinance says it runs with the land. It is possible that if someone had a conditional use permit for making Christmas tree ornaments and they plan to sell the residence and real property and the business, they could continue to run the business. It would be limited to whatever is imposed by the permit. A conditional use permit is not recorded with the title, though. CRAGHEAD: It does run with the property. The Board could change the parameters to just the person or business if they want. LUKE: I don't want to be unreasonable, if there's no major change and the business is already operating. Staff could review this to make sure there are no substantive changes and no complaints, but not charge the whole fee. DEWOLF: We don't have to review it. The neighbors will let us know if there's a problem. LUKE: The conditional use permit would go with the land unless there's a major change. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 10 of 36 Pages DALY: I think what you're saying, Laurie, is that we could look at these when people sell. But if we don't, it would be complaint driven. LAURIE: You could add that as part of the Code provision. DENNIS COLLINS: My address is P. O. Box 1842, Redmond. I'm still confused by the lot sizes. If you have twenty acres and it's EFU, you could have five employees? SYRNYK: Right. With a type 3, you could have up to five employees if your property is zoned exclusive farm use or forest use, and you have at least twenty acres. COLLINS: And with MUA you could have only two employees? Will that come out? SYRNYK: The only thing that's more specific under type 3 is the reference to EFU and forest zones. Under 3-13 you could have two employees. That would also apply under a type 2 home occupation. DEWOLF: Anything that's half an acre or more, for types 2 or 3, you could have two employees. SYRNYK: If you have property that is zoned EFU or forest, and it's only an acre, you would be limited to two employees under a type 3. COLLINS: Under twenty acres. Then, the ten acres, back here under item L, where does that fall in? SYRNYK: That would apply in any zone. I should mention that the Board talked about type 2 having to start with at least 1/2 acre in size. So there are three property size standards that we're dealing with tonight. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 11 of 36 Pages One, under type 2, it would have to be at least 1/2 acre or more. Under type 3, there's a property size limitation that comes in if you want to have more than two employees and you are in a farm or forest use zone; that's twenty acres. LUKE: Somewhere we talked about five acres. COLLINS: What happened to the five acres? DEWOLF: We talked about that, but we said for purposes of discussion that we'd leave it the way it is. SYRNYK: The final standard for outdoor storage right now before the Board is ten acres. DEWOLF: But that's not related to the number of employees. FRANK BRIAN: What happens on the application thing between types 2 and 3. Type 2 was going to be reviewed by the planners and they would decide. Is that still the same? SYRNYK: That's before the Board for discussion. What the Planning Commission talked about was expediting the permitting process for a type 2 where, for instance, if you fill out an application form and it meets the requirements, we'd give some kind of notice to the neighbors that we had approved a type 2 application. That would be done in the office by a member of the planning department. With a type 3, that could be done administratively or referred to a public hearing. The Board talked about a shorter review process with more notice for a type 2, but also talked about notifying people up front so that they'd have an opportunity to comment. TINA LYONS: I'm confused about the conditional use permit running with the land. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 12 of 36 Pages LUKE: Under most conditions. LYONS: So they can advertise and sell the conditional use permit, and be grandfathered in from then on? CRAGHEAD: For that type of business. DALY: If the business were expanded, resulting in more traffic, the use would change. LUKE: Then it would be a code enforcement issue. There have been concerns, and we understand that these are residential areas. As you bring businesses into a residential area, you change the character of those areas. That's something we take very seriously. If you are testifying, from my standpoint I would like to know what you think proper notice would be for types 2 and 3, and what kind of rights you believe you have as a neighbor to comment on that. LYONS: Regarding that, I do think that the neighbors should be notified on type 2 before a decision is made. CRAGHEAD: Notification afterwards would mean the right to appeal. DEWOLF: So they can appeal on a type 2 administrative decision after it's been made. Here's the problem, then. Who would they appeal to? SYRNYK: To a hearings officer. DEWOLF: So now we're appealing to a hearings officer. We've set our $300 cost for a type 2 CUP because there is no hearings officer involved. So who pays for the hearings officer then? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 13 of 36 Pages SYRNYK: The appellant. DEWOLF: So, you want to do the business, and it's a type 2 even though it might be borderline. And staff goes along with that. And she wants to appeal it, but she has to pay for the hearings officer. SYRNYK: That's correct. DEWOLF: So we have a $1,380 type 3 that includes a hearings officer. Would she have to pay for the hearings officer even though it's already been paid by the applicant? SYRNYK: Right now, yes. DEWOLF: Why are we charging $1,380? One of the things that our principal planner has the deference to do is, if we receive an application for a conditional use permit today, notice is given to the neighbors. If we receive written comments that question the application or information, the planner can refer it to the hearings officer without anybody having to appeal. So we shift gears at that point. Instead of it being a staff review process, it's referred to the hearings officer, who acts as a neutral body in hearing from the applicant, the proponents and opponents. DEWOLF: But that planner also could not send it to a hearings officer. What I don't understand is why we charge that same price when it doesn't involve equal service. Why wouldn't we have a reduced fee if no hearings officer is involved. SYRNYK: That would be a question for our Director. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 14 of 36 Pages CRAGHEAD: That's the way land use permits are done now. DEWOLF: I understand that, but I don't get it. If we're trying to establish a fee for paying for what you get, why are we keeping that money. CRAGHEAD: Part of it is, I think, because it also takes more staff time to review because it's more complicated. � AIM A lot of our fees are based on an average cost of processing. That $1,380 reflects an average of fees. That raises some good questions. Sometimes you don't know ahead of time. LYONS: I think on a type 2 the neighbors should be notified before a decision is made, and that to appeal it shouldn't cost the neighbor money. DEWOLF: Let me play the other side of this. That is, you don't like your neighbor for instance. And you're going to stick it to them, and you know you can appeal for free and cause them a bunch of grief. We also want to avoid having this being spat -driven. How do you deal with that? LYONS: By notifying me first and giving me input before the decision is made. DEWOLF: But then you want to appeal because you don't like your neighbor, and that's really the reason you want to appeal. If there is no cost to you, it's really easy to do it. By having a fee associated with it, we know you're serious. LYONS: Okay, fair enough. I think it would deter some people who can't afford it from appealing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 15 of 36 Pages Continuing with type 2, I don't believe a half -acre is large enough for several reasons. I believe the County is discouraging development on half -acre pieces right now by creating the new neighborhood. LUKE: Most of the stuff in La Pine is one acre. There aren't that many half -acre lots down there. LYONS: You can get a transfer development credit for a half -acre. I take it to mean that the County is trying to discourage development on half -acre lots. LUKE: We are trying to encourage people to build where the services are. We don't have to restrict development on all of the lots in La Pine. Again, some of the experimental septic systems down there are actually proving out very well. I don't know very many rural subdivisions that are a half -acre. LYONS: All of the ones in my subdivision are. I think it should be at least an acre for a type 2 business. LUKE AND DALY: Why? LYONS: Because most of the half -acre parcels that are already developed have homes, wells, standard septic systems and a garage. And you need parking room for employees and maybe customers. I just don't think that's enough room. DALY: I think it's hard to estimate a half -acre. It's a lot of room. LYONS: I also don't think that signs should be allowed in a type 2. It ruins the rural character of the neighborhood, and creates unwanted people roaming the neighborhood looking at what's happening. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 16 of 36 Pages DEWOLF: It would be three square feet on the building. SYRNYK: It would be one sign, ground mounted or on the building, three square feet in area and not illuminated. This would not require a sign permit. LYONS: Items number 2-H says that the buildings could have no external changes, and no outward appearance of a building. It seems to me that the design of type 2 is to not make it look like a business, yet you'd allow a sign. I also think that with types 2 and 3 that when the planners are looking at the conditional use permit, road maintenance should be specifically looked at in all the rural residential areas. What is the impact on the neighbors? DEWOLF: Help me understand this. You've got two employees, two people who live there, and ten customers a day. I've got seven children and their friends, and potentially they could triple the trips if they're in high school. LYONS: I personally say that's a family, and you can have as many kids coming and going as you want. To add commercial or business activity and trips on top of it is too much, especially on dusty roads that we maintain ourselves. That's all I have. WILLIAM KUHN: I live on Sizemore Road in Tumalo. I have a couple of questions about the general conditions of some of the restrictions. Under number 2, type 2, it says that there may be an annual inspection as a condition of approval. Does that mean someone from the County comes to the property to inspect? If so, what are the requirements of the employee if they find a code violation. That's 2-L on page 2 of 3. LUKE: They can't enter without permission. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 17 of 36 Pages CRAGHEAD: This gives permission. DALY: It's a "may", not a "shall". The inspection is optional for the County. SYRNYK: One thing the Planning Commission considered is the ability to conduct an annual inspection, depending on the nature of the business. What that would involve preliminarily would be a tickler system where we'd notify someone that they are up for an inspection, and make arrangements to meet at the property. They would verify the same business is being conducted, and make a notation for the land use record. If some kind of violation was noted or if the business is different that what was approved, that's an open question as to whether we'd give them a certain amount of time to rectify it or notify code enforcement. LUKE: It depends on the severity, but most of the times it involves a letter regarding the violation, and requesting a remedy. KUHN: Under M, type 3, it shall be reviewed every twelve months. If so, I'm curious why there isn't some kind of termination of the conditional use permit on the sale of the property. I would encourage you to reconsider the concept that the conditional use permit goes with the land and not the person. I feel strongly that people tend to give approval or don't speak disapprovingly of a business because they know the person that's running it. But when a sale takes place, you're now opening this up to a perpetual bad situation for the neighbors. I'm just encouraging you to consider changing that from going with the land to going with the person who owns it. DEWOLF: On both types 2 and 3? KUHN: I would suggest that, yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 18 of 36 Pages I And if a business turns bad and becomes a nuisance, is it this annual review that would cause the County to look more closely at this business, or would a review take place earlier? DEWOLF: If I get a letter from a neighbor that says my neighbor is doing x, y and z, it goes into code enforcement. That's separate from this. KUHN: So it could occur at any time. LUKE: Again, we don't take anonymous complaints, and we don't release the name unless it goes to court. KUHN: I have not been to every hearing and may have missed some of the statistics, but I'm curious about how many home offices there are in Deschutes County. DEWOLF: We don't know. KUHN: I would also be interested in knowing the number of employees per business. I am encouraging you to try to collect this kind of data. DEWOLF: Without having a business permit system of any kind, and without having a system set up to gather than information, one of the difficulties that we have is we get complaints or not, it's random. You can get a complaint about one, but someone doing the same business somewhere else never gets complaints. Currently the regulations that we have throw a significant number of people into illegal activity, because we require a conditional use permit for what they want to do. That's the whole reason for this, particularly the type 1, separating it from types 2 and 3. I don't see us getting into a business permit system. They don't have that type of system in the City of Bend, and don't have that information either. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 19 of 36 Pages KUHN: You're asking small businesses to come up with $1,380 to go through the process. And for some small businesses, that's a huge percentage of their initial startup expense. I'm just kind of curious as to what the County is doing to promote business, to help businesses. DEWOLF: I would offer two responses. Right now, technically anybody who wants to start any kind of business should be paying the $1,380 according to our Code. What we are trying to do is remove that restriction from the vast majority of people who have no impact on their neighborhoods. What state land use calls for is businesses to be located primarily in urban areas, not in rural areas; and that we are to maintain the rural character and protect the residential character of neighborhoods. So by trying to come to this definition, we're trying to be more consistent with what state land use laws are doing. What we do to promote business in this community is a laundry list of things in a wide variety of areas, such as industrial park in La Pine, to the work that we do with COIC, with EDCO, industrial properties that we have, and so on. But that's a whole different subject. KUHN: I appreciate your answer, Commissioner DeWolf. You have just given a very good example of why the conditions should go with the person and not with the land. That covers everything. �."twa One thing that you mentioned in M is that home occupation approval shall be reviewed every twelve months by the Planning Division. In reality, I wouldn't be in favor of that because it will require a lot of staff time, and I think what triggers a problem usually is a complaint. That's how we have been operating all along. MIKE MCFARLAN: I'm an excavation contractor in Terrebonne. I've been to most of the meetings on this. Since it doesn't sound like I will be able to run my business out of my home shop, on thirteen acres, well $1,300 is a chunk of change. LUKE: Compared to what it would cost to set it up in the city? Again, the law requires that we cover our costs, but one of the things we're discussing is whether this can be tiered, and cost less if a Hearings Officer isn't required. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 20 of 36 Pages DEWOLF: What are your particular circumstances? MCFARLAN: It's in Terrebonne, in town. I store equipment outside. SYRNYK: Under the proposal for outdoor storage, you have more than enough acreage there. You couldn't have any outdoor storage under type 2, though. That would fit under type 3. The more important question would be the application fee and whether it would be required if you are already doing what you're doing. Something that has come up before is, if folks already have a permit under their old rules, or when to require people to get a permit if they are already doing what they are doing. MCFARLAN: What would be the advantage of getting a permit unless you're caught? LUKE: When you get caught, there's no guarantee that you could do your business. MCFARLAN: There's no guarantee anyway. LUKE: Sometimes it's easier to say you are sorry than it is to ask permission. MCFARLAN: Why doesn't the County, since there is no available and affordable property, why not lease us five acres apiece and we'll fence it and be zoned right, and $30 an acre or whatever. LUKE: We might; you never know. DALY: There are no grandfather clauses at this point unless it's before 1976 or so. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 21 of 36 Pages SYRNYK: Those would have been nonconforming uses that were before the zoning ordinances took effect in 1973. We should probably look at that, for people who have been operating for a number of years with no complaints. MCFARLAN: Would it still be complaint oriented? LUKE: Most things are, unless a building inspector sees a big, obvious problem. MCFARLAN: If I'm working on somebody else's land, I can leave my equipment there until I'm done with that job. If you can do that and not have to pay, why bring it home? How are you going to enforce that? LUKE: I don't understand. I've been in construction here since 1973 and know that equipment is moved from job to job, and is left there overnight on many occasions. But it can't be left there for a very long time. People could complain against the property owner. SYRNYK: We could look at preexisting uses before the regulations took effect, but they can't exceed the parameters already listed. DEWOLF: The reality is that putting a system in place that if all of a sudden someone doesn't comply, there is some teeth. If we pass this thing and he doesn't come in to get a permit, I'm not going to go knocking on his door or try to find out who's on what type of land. It's a legitimate point, but if he is getting along great with his neighbors, I could care less if he has a permit or not. But if someone else is doing the same thing in a different part of the County, and they don't get along with the neighbors, we'd made her go through this process. Is that the reality? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 22 of 36 Pages LUKE: A complaint could be filed against Mr. McFarland now under the current rules, and if he doesn't already have a conditional use, he could have to cease operations. DEWOLF: If we adopt this, what we will be doing is no different than the old system, in his case. DALY: That's the whole issue. There are a lot of small businesses like his out in the rural areas, many on five acres. I think the issue is whether five acres is too small. Like Tom says, he isn't going to go looking for them, but that doesn't mean that somebody else couldn't do that. In other words, there was the situation in La Pine with the sign situation. He turned in the whole town of La Pine if their signs didn't quite conform to the Code. The same thing could apply here. There are a lot of businesses out there that have been there for years, that have never had a complaint and are doing just fine, but one guy could go through the phone book and turn them all in, and all of a sudden they'd all be out of business. LUKE: I'd don't think you'd put them out of business, but you'd force them to meet the requirements that everybody else has to meet. DEWOLF: Two things. You're absolutely right. Back in the mid -1990's we had the basketball wars in the City of Bend, where someone got upset because somebody turned their basketball hoop around and the kids were playing in the street. Next thing you know, they are driving around to find anybody with a basketball hoop that's not connected to a garage and complaining about them. We had 100 complaints. The same thing could definitely happen here. The advantage of what we are doing here is taking an entire class of people, type 1, who currently could be subject to this, and making it easy for them. CHUCK WAGNER: This may be mercifully brief. I'd like to testify in support of the regulation changes. I am a small business owner and I operate a home occupation, and have for the past 9-1/2 years in Oregon, in West Linn until July. As a result of your fairly progressive outlook on encouraging business, and my hope is that Deschutes County is business friendly when some other places in Oregon are not, I elected to move my consulting business to Sunriver in July. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 23 of 36 Pages I would like to encourage you to look at the equity of employees as you decide exactly what you are going to do, particularly with regard to type 1, but also with respect to types 2 and 3. The definition that is written on this blue sheet I think is an elegant and reasonable wording of how to have equity between the person who is just employed and commutes to his place of employment and the home occupation that does not. And I would discourage you from trying to go to detailed, numeric approaches to that. Your question about the large family with high school children, et cetera, is very much on -point. I'm sure I could find people in the community who don't operate a home based business, who are juts employees, maybe two of them commuting to work along the routes that everybody else takes, adding to peak hour traffic congestion. And I would say to you that this is not only no different, but probably worse than if my home based business had two employees reporting to work every day, not driving peak hours on peak traffic routes. It becomes very difficult to figure out whether two employees are right, or three, or four. So I would say the wording on this blue sheet is a very elegant and useful definition so that you can accomplish what you are setting out to do. And also so that you don't discriminate against the person who operates a home based business and who is improving the problems of employment, commuting and impacts on the community. DEWOLF: Let me ask you this. You live on a dirt road, and we have no number restrictions on any of these types of businesses, and your neighbor starts having thirteen employees and forty customer trips a day, in addition to the UPS truck visits. Don't you think that would be a huge impact compared to what is proposed? WAGNER: Yeah, but I think under your standards, you would have an easy route to complain and a practical way to resolve it. There might be an argument, but I would simply remark that on this side of the Cascades common sense prevails. DEWOLF: It depends on whether you agree with what we decide. We appreciate the fact that you are here. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 24 of 36 Pages LUKE: How does Sunriver view home occupations? WAGNER: What they advised me is that they are silent on that unless you end up having an impact on your neighbors. You have to realize that Sunriver has short-term rentals and people in and out all the time. I go back to my argument that there are folks who in the ordinary course of their social life and employment have far more impact on their neighbors and the surrounding vicinity than I do, even if I have two or three or four employees coming and going. I don't, by the way. JUDY GOODRICH: I'll also be brief. I operate a type 1 business in the Redmond area. I think my concerns are enforcement. You're going to turn the neighbors into the watchdogs of the community. LUKE: They are now. GOODRICH: Not in my neighborhood. And that's a nice thing. I think my biggest concern is the employee issue. I run basically a bookkeeping and secretarial type service. If I get a big project and need to bring a part-time person in for a period of a week to take care of that big project, under your proposed requirements I wouldn't be allowed to do that. I think that's stifling my business. It means I can't take on a larger project. LUKE: In your type of business, conducted inside the home, it would be no different than if you had a child or neighbor come to visit. That person isn't going to impact or change the characteristics of that home. My question is, how is anybody going to have any kind of idea that you have an employee there. DEWOLF: Because her neighbor is sitting right here listening to this, and when they get into a fight and she sees an employee coming in, that's where the problems arise. GOODRICH: Type 1 doesn't allow employees. That's my point. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 25 of 36 Pages DALY: Are you proposing one employee? GOODRICH: Or at least an occasional person, maybe part-time. LUKE: I appreciate that an accountant or someone doing this type of work would not bother a neighbor. But what if the type 1 business does something where that employee disturbs the area, making noise? The whole idea of a type 1 is to not require any kind of permit process. GOODRICH: But it would be complaint driven again. I'm just saying that you don't want to stifle the small business in the area. LUKE: I don't believe we are. GOODRICH: And, frankly, I can't afford $1,380 to become a type 2. DEWOLF: We are also trying to protect your neighbors. Let's say you are less conscientious, and your neighbors don't like it. What we are trying to create here is, since it's complaint driven, you're on your own. If your neighbors don't care, do what you want. The reality is that we have to set some kind of parameters. Maybe a year from now we will have to revisit this because it doesn't work in some situations. It won't work for everybody, and we will probably have to revisit it later. But this all started because of complaints, neighbor against neighbor. We've got to have somewhere to land. I believe strongly that we need to protect residential areas where people want peace and quiet. GOODRICH: I firmly believe that as well. But I also believe that people in business need to be allowed to conduct their business within parameters. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 26 of 36 Pages LUKE: That's what we're setting. GOODRICH: I just don't agree with all of the parameters. LUKE: I don't agree that an occasional person coming to your home to work for a short period of time is a problem, but if the neighbors don't know if that person is a visitor or a relative, it doesn't matter. I don't see how that would create a complaint. GOODRICH: How does the neighbor know those five trips per day are business or personal? I don't see that as an enforceable thing. I understand the spirit of it, but just don't see it as enforceable. DEWOLF: What this and every other law is written for is the 3% of people who create the problems. The other 97% get along with the neighbors. GOODRICH: That was my biggest concern when I read this yesterday. DEWOLF: But you understand right now that in reality you are in violation of the law and would have to get the conditional use permit and pay $1,380. GOODRICH: I appreciate the spirit of what you are trying to do to change that. I guarantee you that most of us don't even realize that is required. I'm a law-abiding person, as are most of them. ROBINA KOEING: At the beginning you talked about the urban growth boundary. Does this apply? LUKE: In the City of Bend, the urban growth boundary and the city limits are the same. They don't line up in Redmond. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 27 of 36 Pages KOEING: When it moves, will we have to comply with the city code? LUKE: When annexing, the city usually allows grandfathering. It could change, though, if the ownership changes. FRANK BRIAN: I'd like to compliment the Board on trying to make this change. It's hard and unfortunately there hasn't been enough outreach to the community. A small number of people have participated in the process. LUKE: It may mean that the others aren't that concerned about it. BRIAN: Maybe they don't understand the implications. And these folks do. And they are all here voicing their opinion based on the fact that they do, and I'm sorry that the Bulletin article wasn't better written about what you're trying to do. It's a tremendously important process, and particularly what you are trying to do here with the small businesses. These are all small businesses and there's nobody getting rich. I still see and I know you personally understand, I don't see it in the wording of the process about the acknowledgment of how important this is to the County now. How many small businesses are there, and the statistics about what is really there. I understand the problem of gathering those statistics. It would have to be an investigative process and it would be costly. DALY: We don't know because everybody out there now is illegal, and they're not going to tell us. BRIAN: There's a lot of people who are illegal who are here, who want to be legal. They want to be a part of the process, and I've talked with a lot of folks who have a home based business here and they're ducking and running. They're afraid that you'll change the laws to somehow put them out of business or charge them a lot of money for something. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 28 of 36 Pages Really, the process is to make them legal. This is how the County survives, with these people working. That's how they get to live here. I do understand the need to clarify all of this. I'm glad that you are all working on it, because it does need to take place. DALY: I want to clarify the reason that I brought this forward. There were instances where folks - one instance in particular where one guy had been there 18 years in one spot, and his neighbor got mad at him, decided to turn him in, and the County put him out of business. Frankly, the process is good, but there are some things to adjust and work out to fit as many people as possible. It opened up a lot of dialogue and we'll get some things solved, I hope. BRIAN: I would encourage you to put out more propaganda to the paper and have it publish it, even if you have to buy a page, so people can understand what's going on. The land use laws in Oregon are the reason that rural counties are the poorest in the state. When you can't run a business off your property just because it's one of the rules, it's a problem. I do have a question about the proposed limitations for business hours, 8 to 5, five days a week. Most of these are small businesses and they may need to work Saturdays or evenings. This wouldn't help them. LUKE: Again, the primary use of these areas is residential. There have to be some kind of standards. Maybe it can be more flexible, but these are residential areas where people have a right to some peace and quiet in your home. BRIAN: I'm not saying that that's unreasonable, but I'm just saying that some flexibility might we warranted. LUKE: Nobody cares about the type 1. BRIAN: If the conditional use permit transfers with the property, would that increase the value of the property, and therefore increase taxes? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 29 of 36 Pages LUKE: I doubt it. You're paying on the assessed value of the home, unless there is a major change in its use. DEWOLF: Why in type 2 do we have a limit of 8 to 5, Monday through Friday, and in type 3 it is limited to the hours of operation proposed and approved. SYRNYK: When the Planning Commission was looking at this, they were trying to think of what differences to impose between types 2 and 3. Since type 3 was going to be a conditional use, they didn't think there needed to be any limits on hours since they are reviewed on a case by case basis. What they were trying to accomplish with type 2 was to have some kind of limit on hours for customer traffic; when your business might be open. DEWOLF: The same would apply in type 3, wouldn't it? You're still talking about customers, only more of them. They could theoretically be approved to go to 10 p.m. SYRNYK: Again, the difference between the two types were that type 2 would be more clear and objective, and type 3 would be subject to greater review and would present the opportunity to comment ahead of time. BRIAN: I would volunteer to pay for a page in the paper to explain this. It could have a serious impact on the community. DALY: We wouldn't need to if the Bulletin would show up at the meetings. LUKE: The article could also inform neighbors who might be mad at their neighbor, and they could alert them to it and tell on them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 30 of 36 Pages DEWOLF: We've had this reported on repeatedly for a long time before it got to us. So there's a lot of information out there that people are peripherally aware of. As much as I appreciate what you are doing, when I first got into this business that's what I thought everybody would do. The reality is that most people either trust their government or they are too busy watching TV to worry about it. LUKE: The first year Tom and I were here, only one person showed up for budget hearings. At this time a five-minute break was taken. DENNIS COLLINS: I guess I'm on the edge here. I'm an excavating contractor with five employees, with less than twenty acres on MUA. I'm probably the only one in Deschutes County that's in this situation. LUKE: That's one of the reasons I brought up MUA. To me, there's not a lot of difference between MUA and EFU, if you have the right acreage. COLLINS: I have thirteen acres, and I'm using maybe 3/4 of an acre for business. DEWOLF: I thought with MUA we didn't have the twenty -acre restriction. SYRNYK: Under type 3, what's proposed is up to five employees if your property is located in an EFU or forest zone, and if it is at least twenty acres in size. DEWOLF: So if you aren't in an EFU or forest zone with twenty acres, you can't have five employees. SYRNYK: Just up to two under type 3. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 31 of 36 Pages COLLINS: That's the part I don't understand. Commissioner DeWolf, you made a comment earlier about the amount of EFU parcels in Deschutes County. How many was that again? DEWOLF: EFU or forest of twenty acres or more, there's 2,300 tax lots. No idea how many are buildable. COLLINS: You can't build on a lot of the EFU property. My point is, is there enough property out here for all us guilty guys? I don't think there is. LUKE: There's not enough property out there for people who want to build houses, either. COLLINS: That's the whole thing. You can't build on a lot of the EFU land. And if you can't have MUA-10, it's pretty limited. The $1,3 80 would be a great thing for me. DEWOLF: How much of a can of worms does it open to modify this to also include RR -10 and MUA-10? With a ten -acre minimum, in addition to EFU and forest at twenty acres. SYRNYK: I don't know that it would open up a whole can of worms. We would still be looking at these on a case by case basis. I think one of the reasons we stopped at five is that under state law under farm and forest zones, counties can allow home occupations but are limited to up to five employees. One of the things we talked with the Planning Commission was about allowing five employees across the board. Not everybody will have five, but someone might work up to that in their business. DEWOLF: I think it is reasonable to keep a restriction of five. It seems like the reason we have three types here is that there are differences between the types. You can make it simpler, less expensive, and less cumbersome to go through a type 2. Nothing at all for a type 1. Type 3 is more difficult and ought to be because you are in a residential neighborhood. You want to look at those impacts you might have. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 32 of 36 Pages COLLINS: It makes sense. In the excavating business, the part that bothers me is that I'm no guiltier than anyone else as far as they are an electrical contractor and they leave with five vans. We just have bigger trucks. I would like to see it dropped to ten acres. I was under the assumption that somebody had considered five or ten acres prior to this. DEWOLF: We left_ the twenty in there for discussion purposes. DALY: Another issue is trying to find legally zoned property for this kind of business. COLLINS: I've looked, and can't afford it. Deschutes County property is not cheap. I pay taxes on my property and equipment. By the time you buy the property and build a shop, and take care of all the SDC's, you end up paying $750,000 for the property. I can't afford that. LUKE: If there is that much demand for a place to park your equipment, why hasn't someone developed something? COLLINS: The property is too valuable and hard to find. DALY: It requires M-2 property. There's lots of M-1 property, but the County owns all of the M-2 property. At $3.00 per foot, the bare land would cost $600,000. COLLINS: I'm willing to do the $1,3 80 and do my part. That's a fair amount. The reviews should be on a complaint basis; it's a waste to do it every year. LUKE: The cost might not be that high. We're going to look at it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 33 of 36 Pages MARV BENDER: I have ten acres zoned for farm use. I drive a dump truck, and have done so since 1970. I'm concerned about grandfathering if someone is there for a long time. DALY: There was no land use law in 1970. You're probably okay. LUKE: There were some good points brought up today regarding evaluating the fee structure. DEWOLF: The overriding factor is that there is no permit required. It predates any land use laws here. CRAGHEAD: The surest way is to file for a declaratory ruling or non -conforming use. DAILY: Only if there is a complaint and the County says to go through the process. DEWOLF: Sounds like a non -issue. What would happen if there were a complaint? SYRNYK: They would investigate and write a letter; one option is to process the declaratory ruling regarding the business predating zoning laws. This costs about $500. DEWOLF: The worst case is that his neighbor complains and it costs $500 for this, unless we waive it. CRAGHEAD: Code enforcement could find that it can't be enforced and would not take it on. FRANK PENNOCK: I'm president of the Deschutes River Woods Homeowners' Association. Regarding type 1, when people have a business the neighbors don't know, but if we need one employee, I think it should be okay on a case by case basis. Sometimes a business might need some help, physically. This should be open and legal to them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 34 of 36 Pages Commissioner Luke asked if there was any further testimony or any questions. No one responded. DEWOLF: What's next in this process? I'd like to get together with George Read, Tom Anderson and Damian to discuss where we're at. Part of what will impact my decision is options in regard to fees for types 2 and 3, whether the Hearings Officer is involved, the cost of notifications, and so on. DALY: I want to look at the annual review stipulation, and there are a few things to clarify. Will we have another public hearing? LUKE: We've had a lot of public hearings and input. We need at least one more work session to clarify some issues and fine-tune what we have, unless there are major changes. JACKIE PENNOCK: Are you still accepting written testimony? DEWOLF: Since this isn't a land use issue, we can accept written testimony until the day we make a decision. CRAGHEAD: This is a legislative matter, so testimony can come in at any time. Being no further testimony offered, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 7: 45 p. m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 35 of 36 Pages DATED this 28th Day of October 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: ("IV�U:,Gt��- Recording Secretary Dennis R. Luke, Chair Tom DeWolf, Commissioner Miclfael M. Daly, C"oAmissioner Attachments Exhibit A: Staff Report (9 pages) Exhibit B: Current Rules on Home Occupations (1 page) Exhibit C: Proposed Changes to Definition of Home Occupations (1 page) Exhibit D: Copy of hearing sign -in sheet (1 page) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 36 of 36 Pages 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Damian Syrnyk, Senior Planner DATE; October 21, 2003 SUBJECT: October 28, 2003 public hearing on Ordinance 2003-003, regarding home occupations in Deschutes County (File No. TA -02-12) Purpose The purpose of this report is to present a Board Hearing Draft of the above -referenced ordinance proposing new regulations for home occupations. The Board will hold a public hearing on this draft at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 2003. Background The public hearing scheduled for October 28, 2003 will be the third public hearing before the Board. The process of opening the regulations up for public review began in November of 2002 with the first hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held a second hearing in January of 2003. After this hearing, the Planning Commission conducted three work sessions before making a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. The Board conducted its first public hearing on the Planning Commission Recommendation (Ordinance 2003-003) on April 23, 2003. After the hearing, staff prepared and the commissioners responded to a questionnaire that asked 17 questions on the issues raised in public testimony and addressed through the ordinance. The Board held a work session on May 14, 2003 and provided staff direction on areas of agreement and areas where more work was required before soliciting additional public input on the ordinance. The Board held another work session on June 18, 2003 during which the Board decided on what elements to retain in the ordinance for the purpose of obtaining additional public input on the proposal. The last hearing on this proposal was held on July 22, 2003. After this hearing, the Board held work sessions on August 14 and August 25, during which the Board came to a consensus on a draft that is the subject of the October 28 public hearing. The proposed ordinance would make several changes to Title 18 of the County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance. It would repeal the existing regulations on home occupations in the conditional use chapter (DCC 18.128) of the Zoning Ordinance and replace this section with a new Section 18.116.280. This section would include the regulations for three (3) types of home occupations. The ordinance would also expand the definition of home occupation (See DCC 18.04.030) to be more clear on what kinds of activities constitute a home occupation, including the threshold of a home occupation that would not be regulated if it involved activities indistinguishable from the residential use of a dwelling. The bulk of the changes to the Zoning Quality Services Perforined with Pride Exhibit 17 Page /of �_ Ordinance involve eliminating existing references to home occupations in zoning districts where dwellings are allowed and replacing them with references to the three types of home occupations allowed under the new section DCC 18.116.280. Elements of Proposed Ordinance This portion of the staff report summarizes the proposed changes to the definition of home occupation and the three (3) proposed types of home occupation. You will find enclosed a "Board Hearing Draft" that shows the requirements for all three types of home occupation. Definition. The proposed definition of home occupation includes several key changes: 1. First, the clarification that the home occupation must be located within a dwelling and/or a residential accessory structure. This change allows an operator of a home occupation to conduct the business from within one or both buildings. 2. Related to this change is the proposal to clarify that the occupation or profession conducted as a home occupation must be secondary to the residential use of the dwelling and/or the residential accessory structure. 3. The proposed definition also includes new text that states a limited number of employees who are not residents of the dwelling may be allowed for certain types of home occupations. 4. The proposed definition now includes a threshold of home occupation that could be conducted without adhering to the regulations proposed through this ordinance. Such an occupation or profession is limited to a dwelling, carried on by a member of the family residing in the dwelling, and that do not serve clients or customers on site. This threshold also clarifies that if such activities are conducted that are indistinguishable from the residential use of the dwelling they shall be considered accessory to the residential use of the dwelling. Types of Home Occupation. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows home occupations as conditional uses in most zone districts. Certain types of home occupations are permitted outright in unincorporated communities such as La Pine and Terrebonne. The following summarizes the key elements of each proposed type of home occupation: 1. Type 1 home occupations are permitted outright. This proposed type is limited to occupations carried on within a dwelling and/or a residential accessory structure and only by members of the family residing in the dwelling. No off-site employees are allowed to report to the site for work. Customer trips to the site are limited to five (5) per day. 2. Type 2 home occupations are allowed as conditional uses. This is a new category of home occupation developed by the Planning Commission. This type allows a limited number of employees who report to a dwelling for work and a limited number of customer trips per day. The size and scope of this type of home occupation is limited as well as hours of operation. No outside storage of equipment or materials is allowed for a Type 2 home occupation and certain uses may not be allowed as Type 2 home occupations. Staff Report to BOCC October 21, 2003 Page 2 of 3 Exhibit Page 3. Type 3 home occupations are also conditional uses. This type is based upon the current regulations for home occupations that may be allowed as conditional uses under the Zoning Ordinance. The major changes proposed to this type include provisions for employees,.a higher number of potential customer trips to a residence, and the allowance for outside storage under certain circumstances. Changes to Zone References. The Zoning Ordinance currently lists home occupations as a conditional use in most zoning districts. A home occupation is permitted outright currently only in zones of unincorporated communities that allow dwellings. The proposed ordinance would add the proposed Type 1 home occupation to the list of uses permitted outright in the Multiple Use Agricultural and Rural Residential Zones. The ordinance would also add Type 1 home occupations to the list of permitted uses in three of the zone districts of the Sunriver Unincorporated Community that allow dwellings. The references to home occupation listed as a conditional use will change in those zoning districts where a home occupation is allowed as a conditional use. These references will change to refer to a Type 2 or Type 3 home occupation subject to the requirements of DCC 18.116.280. Notice Written notice of the public hearing was mailed to the interested persons on the Department's mailing list on October 9, 2003. Staff sent an electronic mail (e-mail) version of the notice on Wednesday October 8, 2003 to those persons who provide the Department with their e-mail address. The Bulletin newspaper published notice of the hearing on Saturday October 18, 2003. The County also released a press release on October 13, 2003 that was posted to the County's website. You will find enclosed copies of written comments (letters and/or email) submitted by the date of this report. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Board of Commissioners take the following actions: 1. Conduct a public hearing on the Board Hearing Draft dated October 21, 2003 and Ordinance 2003-003 in its entirety. 2. Consider testimony received on the draft and the ordinance. 3. Provide Staff Direction on whether the Board is prepared to perform a first reading of the ordinance or desires Staff to make changes the proposed regulations. Please contact me at 385-1709 or at damians(cD-co.deschutes.or.us if you have any questions. /DPS Attachments: 1. Summary Table of Amendments 2. Board Hearing Draft 3. Public Comments Staff Report to BOCC October 21, 2003 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit Iq Page 3 of 9 Ordinance 2003-003 - Summary Table of Amendments Ordinance Section # DCC Chapter/ Section Zone/ Rural Community Exhibit Form of Amendment ADDED Type 1 home occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. ADDED Type 2 or Type 3 home occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. OTHER CHANGES 1 18.04.030. Definition A Definition - Home Occupation 2 18.16.030 EFU B X 3 18.32.020 MUA10 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 I 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 Chapter Y Repeals 18.128.110 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit /- Page _� 0f_ Board Hearing Draft on Home Occupations October 21, 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 October 28, 2003 Public Hearing Page 1 of 3 Exhibit Page - ;-- of �_ Board Hearing Draft on Home Occupations October 21, 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 appearance of a building shall be allowed to accommodate the home occupation except when For October 28, 2003 Public Hearing Page 2 of 3 Exhibit_{ Page �v of 2 r 5 Board Hearing Draft on Home Occupations October 21, 2003 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 10 or more acres in size and the applicant shows that adequate setbacks, screening and/or buffering are 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 October 28, 2003 Public Hearing Page 3 of 3 Exhibit 14 Page —_ of Damian Syrnyk From: Dennis Krakow [krakowcpa@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:05 PM To: damians@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: ordinance 2003-003 home occupations 180116.280 Damian, I will refer to your memorandum of 8/23/03 and the 8/14/03 draft. Per your memo, I assume that any home occupation that uses any structure other than the residence is not exempt and is, therefore, a type 1,2 or 3. I think this is how it should be. B.l.a. mentions "residential accessory structure*". That needs to be defined. Does it include a detached garage or a tool shed? Separate buildings should not be built for the business purpose. B.l.b. mentions the 5 trips to the site limit. That should include the business owner and family to avoid a business where the owner makes frequent trips. A trip by the owner creates the same noise and traffic as any other trip. The same for type 2 and 3 businesses. B.2. Does an approved conditional use permit include a process where the neighbors can provide input? Is a notice sent to neighbors or posted on the property? B.2.b. Again, "accessory building" needs to be defined. B.2.e. Include owner and family business trips. B.2.f. All business related parking should be onsite and not on the street. B.2.m. Business motor vehicles, trailers and vehicle related items should be included in the definition of equipment used in the business and, therefore, should stored in buildings, screened, etc. B.2.n. I am concerned about the growing construction and landscaping businesses that store equipment at the home. I think the businesses should be allowed if they meet the rules regarding trips, etc. However, storing equipment outside should be prohibited. 3.e. Again, include the owner and family business trips. 3.f. Why shouldn't all equipment (including motor vehicles and trailers) have to be garaged? Damian, please call me at 389-7090 to discuss these items before October 23rd. I have a particular interest in this topic. Our Woodside Ranch subdivision has a few home businesses that should not be in a residential setting. I think there should be some grace period for uses that are currently occurring within current rules that would be out of compliance with the new rules. A year seems adequate. On that note, what are the current rules regarding home occupations, if any? Thank you, Dennis Krakow 60033 Ridgeview Court Bend, OR 97702 (541)389-7090 1 Exhibit Page _ of ,; Damian Svrnvk From: Dennis Krakow [krakowcpa@yahoo.com) Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 8:27 AM To: damians@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: Home occs Damian, The proposed rules are not clear regarding businesses that store equipment and/or supplies at the residence, but the customer work is done away from home. Building contractors are the most obvious example. They should be regulated in all ways as if the business is at home. The noise, dust, and visual pollution can be worse than a business conducted entirely in the home. Please let me know your thoughts on this, including if I should be sharing my ideas directly with anyone else. Dennis Krakow Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com 1 Exhibit X Page of -- Current Rules on Home Occupations Definition "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. Permitted Outright Home occupation 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 produce odor, dust, glare, flashing lights or noise; 4. Does not occupy more than 25 percent of the floor area of the dwelling; and 5. Does not include the on -premises display or sale of stock in trade. 6. Does not have any outdoor storage of materials used in the home occupation. Conditional Use When permitted as a conditional use and conducted as an accessory use, a home occupation shall be subject to the following limitations: A. The home occupation is to be secondary to the residential or other use for which a dwelling has been permitted. It shall be conducted only by members of the family residing on the property. The home occupation shall be conducted in such a way that it has no adverse impact on the residential, or in resource zones, resource -oriented character of its location. B. 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. C. The subject property shall have adequate access and parking for the home occupation. Traffic created by the business or customers of the business shall not be of a volume or frequency that will cause disturbance or inconvenience to nearby land uses. D. All uses conducted on the subject property shall comply with all requirements of the Deschutes County Building and Safety Division and the Environmental Health Division and any other applicable state or federal laws. E. The home occupation approval shall be reviewed every 12 months by the planning division to ensure compliance with the requirements of DCC 18.128.110 and the conditions required for approval of the use. F. No materials or mechanical equipment shall be used 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. Exhibit =: . of Proposed Changes to Definition of Home Occupation 18.04.030. Definitions. "Home occupation" means an occupation or profession carried on within a dwelling and/or a residential accessory structure by a FesideRt ef.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 occupations that have the following characteristics are not regulated under the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. 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: 5) do not include the on -premise advertisement, display or sale of stock in trade. Such occupations or professions that have operate from within a dwelling and have characteristics that are indistinguishable from the residential use of the dwelling shall not be regulated as home occupations, but shall be considered uses accessory to the residential use of a dwelling. Exhibit C Page / of �_ Q) V1 L ar vl r b / co E x co Y L Q) 0 1xO �i. V v Vr ( O �— 1 a e C}� Q) Q Q) Lac i _ o Q U� cj a CD .t d0 Q 19 Ct ."6 I� co O 6 M M •a � E � a � � v t�1 v � o z " + - 3 �� \ Q) 1�y Ex ibi t L ar vl r