Loading...
2003-1411-Minutes for Meeting November 06,2003 Recorded 11/14/2003DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11111111111111111111111111111 2003-1411 CLERKDS IBJ 003■�4l1 11/14/2003 01:38:44 PM 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 SPECIAL WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend The purpose of the meeting was for the Board to discuss some aspects of a proposed home occupation ordinance. Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom DeWolf and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Damian Syrnyk and Catherine Morrow, Community Development Department; and three other citizens. No representatives of the media were in attendance. Commissioner Luke opened the meeting at 10:03 a.m. Damian Syrnyk introduced two new pieces of written testimony for the Commissioners, as submitted via e-mail by Dennis Krakow and Tina Lyons. (Copies are attached as Exhibits A and B) He then gave an overview of the reason for the work session. He also explained that Legal Counsel Mark Pilliod was monitoring the meeting and was available to answer any questions that might arise. ► -611% The Board last held a public hearing on this issue October 28. I want to follow up on the Board's request regarding the number of tax lots that are twenty or more acres in most of the rural zones. This came up in the discussion about allowing employees as proposed under type 3. The numbers submitted this morning are a total of 1,030 tax lots that are twenty acres or more. Forty-six of those are zoned RR -10, sixteen are zoned MUA-10, 107 are zoned forest, and the remaining 861 are zoned EFU. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 1 of 22 Pages In the ordinance as proposed for type 3, a home occupation could have up to five employees and, if it were at least twenty acres, in a farm or forest zone. LUKE: But they wouldn't be allowed in MUA or RR -10? C They could have at most two employees with a type 3 home occupation. LUKE: But if you were next door on an EFU parcel, you could have up to five employees. DALY: I thought we had talked about ten acres. �. One of the things changed for the hearing was the allowance of outdoor storage, reducing the requirement from twenty to ten acres. Do you want to include looking at the number of employees? CATHERINE MORROW: Didn't we have a proposal or an idea to consider that would maybe reach a compromise? 'AN -1. We do. One option is that the Board wanted to consider allowing up to five employees, not just in the EFU and forest zones, but also in the MUA and RR -10 zones. I also understood that you also might want to consider reducing the property size from twenty acres to ten acres. MORROW: So a proposal would be, in type 3, across the board in any zone to have the minimum size ten acres, and employees would be up to five in any zone. LUKE: The original proposal from the Planning Commission was what? SYRNYK: Up to five employees in the EFU and forest zones, when there are twenty acres or more. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 2 of 22 Pages MORROW: Part of the reason the Planning Commission made that distinction between the number of employees in EFU and forest zones versus other zones is that statute allows up to five in EFU and forest zones. There's no limitation on the acreage; it doesn't say. That would simplify things for type 3, and might address some of the concerns you've heard in testimony. DALY: My concern all along has been that there is a number of small businesses existing on these smaller parcels in the rural areas, and a lot of them have existed for a long time and the neighbors have no problem with them. Now, if we were to be hard and fast on the acreage size, if they get a complaint they could be out of business. I think that we ought to at least consider grandfathering in some of these existing businesses. I think five acres is ample myself, if you have adequate setbacks and screening. If that's not acceptable here, then I think we ought to at least consider grandfathering some of these existing businesses. I don't want to be put into the position of having an irate person who is mad at everyone, like we had on the La Pine signage issue, go around and write down everybody who has been in business a long time and come in and complain about them, putting them out of business. I don't want that to happen, and I don't think you do either. DEWOLF: Whatever we adopt, somebody won't fit and someone will get mad and turn them in. Do we have a variance process built in to this? If I get mad at him, does he have the opportunity to come in and ask for a variance, because I need six employees instead of five? 6V4-"W�1 Right now we've got a variance procedure in the code. But it is designed for providing relief where there is something about a property that is unique and would not allow it to be developed under our current regulations; for example, set backs. DEWOLF: But that doesn't apply to this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 3 of 22 Pages SYRNYK: I don't think someone could use the variance process to up the number of employees. DEWOLF: Or, it requires ten acres and I have 9-1/2. SYRNYK: One thing I can tell you is that we do have, as part of our definition of lot area, a built-in fudge factor. This is where if you've got for example 9.95 acres and your property is described as a fraction of a section, and the other portion of the acreage was at some point acquired for right-of-way, we will consider it to be ten acres for purposes of dividing or developing. One thing I'd also like to add in regard to preexisting or something that might not fit is that the zoning ordinance does deal with non -conforming uses. We've got a procedure to go through to document that what they have been doing they lawfully established and had been doing for a long time. They can go through a declaratory ruling process to document that even though they may not be allowed under current zoning, they were lawful established as some point. DEWOLF: The problem with that is not everybody will be like Mary Bender, who predates zoning law. Most of these folks would be those who have been there after land use was established and have been illegal since they began. It's just that nobody is upset about it, until someone new moves in and gets mad about it and complains. I don't know how you grandfather people in. I think that we need to craft this so that we're doing the most good for people who shouldn't be dealt with under this code, and the least harm to those who will come under this code. A couple of things that I would toss out are these. I think that for types 2 and 3, that notice ought to be sent to the neighbors prior to the decision. Tina (Lyons) brought that up last time, and I think that's very reasonable. If you want to establish a business, the way this is written right now the neighbors would be told after the decision has been made. Then the neighbors could pay money and appeal. MORROW: For type 2. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 4 of 22 Pages DEWOLF: No, types 2 and 3. I suggest that if you want to establish a business, I will hear about it ahead of time and I'll be able to get my objections into the record prior to the decision being made, so that the decision being made administratively may come with conditions as a result of my concerns. LUKE: If they were all twenty -acre pieces, how many people would you contact? SYRNYK: It depends on the zoning. If it is farm or forest use, we would go out 750 feet from the boundary of the property. LUKE: That very well could be one neighbor on each side. SYRNYK: If it's RR -10, it's 250 feet from the boundary of the property. DEWOLF: But that is what you are getting; the neighbors. MORROW: And that's our standard notice area for all of our procedures. SYRNYK: It sounds like what we would be doing is essentially treating type 2 home occupations the same as a type 3, where if we handled an application administratively we would receive it, give notice to people who are entitled to know about it, there would be a comment period for written comments, and those would be taken into the decision-making on the application. DEWOLF: And type 3 is already written to be handled that way. I think they should both be. LUKE: That will drive up the cost. MORROW: That's true. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 5 of 22 Pages DEWOLF: It can't be that much. SYRNYK: There are several differences in what is allowed between types 2 and 3. It sounds like there is a proposal to process them the same way. I think one of the goals of the Planning Commission was to look at type 2 differently in respect to fees and processing. LUKE: I think there should be notice to both of them. It makes no sense to me that if you approve it administratively and the person opens the business, the neighbor has to file an appeal to complain. Then the appellant has to pay a fee to complain. That doesn't make any sense. They would have to pay to appeal the decision if they don't like it, but at least they'll have a chance to comment before approval. DEWOLF: And it may be that you can avoid the appeal by making the neighbors aware in advance. Maybe they can talk through potential conflicts, and deal with additional screening or whatever; to give the neighbors a comfort level with what is going to be occurring. •"•, But in type 2 there is no outside storage that would require screening. DEWOLF: Bad example. But there are examples that I'm not thinking of now. MORROW: I understand, and we can do that. The recommendation of the Planning Commission and the way the ordinance was drafted, however, was that type 2 was supposed to have objective standards. If you meet these thresholds, you're good. So, if someone were to present testimony in advance of the decision, basically it would be that they either meet the threshold or they don't. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 6 of 22 Pages LUKE: Land use planning, when you adopt a comprehensive plan, spells out in many cases exactly what kind of industry can go there. An industry comes in that exactly fits the plan, but still has to file an application and have a public hearing to see if it's okay to they can build there. Our land use laws do this. All of our land use laws allow notice to the neighbors. If the neighbors' requests are not reasonable, and the business meets the criteria, that will give staff the ability to approve them within the law. DEWOLF: I do understand what you're saying, and I agree with you that the intention is for this to be a lower threshold because it's less intrusive. It's almost a courtesy. I'm not suggesting that we create a full-blown conditional use process like for a type 3, but we're only talking about a half-dozen neighbors being notified. It gives them the opportunity to have input. MORROW: You've got one mailing, either before or after. The cost is the same. SYRNYK: What we'd be doing is notifying the neighbors of the application, giving them a period of time to respond with concerns, and they would also get notice of the decision. DEWOLF: I think that's the courteous thing to do. MORROW: Do we have consensus on this? LUKE: I would be a lot more comfortable with this. DEWOLF: The second thing is, the more I've thought about it, I think that this conditional use permit should go with the person and not with the property. I don't think that if I open a well -drilling business, that it should stay with the property forever. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 7 of 22 Pages LUKE: You could treat it like a liquor license. Every time the ownership changes, the new owner has to apply. DEWOLF: If I want to sell my business and my home, I think that anybody buying that business and home ought to have to go through the conditional use permit process so that they are fully aware of the restrictions in this code, and are fully aware of the conditions under which they can operate. They can make an offer on somebody's home and property, subject to successfully getting a conditional use permit. This would be for types 2 and 3. MORROW: So, in that case we would have to do an annual follow-up to make sure the property hadn't sold, because we don't have any way to know. DALY: It's very problematic and expensive. LUKE: Right now, a code violation is put-on the County record. Why can't you put this on the County record so that when a piece of property is going to be sold, the title company will pull it up and be alerted to the conditional use permit? DEWOLF: Then we get notified, rather than us having to watch for it. We can investigate that possibility, yes. LUKE: You guys do that now with code violations. MORROW: It doesn't trigger a notification to us that it could be changing hands. We will see if there's some way for us to do that. The other thing that might address this is if we made it a standard condition, if the property were sold a new permit would have to be obtained. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 8 of 22 Pages DEWOLF: I would tend to go along with allowing up to five employees in the RR -10 and MUA zones. The reason is, the rest of the requirements and conditions are such that I think that we're protecting, in terms of noise, dust, visual, and the rest of it. There would be notice in advance with a comment period. If there's a lot of interest or opposition, it could be referred to a public hearing. DALY: What's wrong with five acres? MORROW: We proposed ten acres as a compromise. DALY: It depends on the shape of the property. If it's long and skinny, it could be a problem even it's large. The criteria should be setbacks. SYRNYK: If it were a type 3, outside storage would take into consideration the setbacks and screening. DEWOLF: We're saying adequate, but aren't setting them. MORROW: There could be adequate acreage for storage but maybe there's no room for adequate setbacks. That would come out as the permit is reviewed. SYRNYK: It's handled on a case by case basis. Some businesses might require a larger setback area or more screening. DEWOLF: It's important that what we are trying to do is find a balance. We can't make every property suitable for a home occupation. We want to protect those that exist now and are getting along fine with their neighbors. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 9 of 22 Pages On the flip side of that, we're trying to protect the residential character of properties in the rural areas. Finding that balance is the goal. A lot of people have had input during this process, but I'm not convinced that it will be perfect, although it should be a decent compromise. DALY: I'm concerned about the many existing businesses out there that could now be illegal. There are basic property rights to earn a living on your property. Most of them are not operating on the property, but just have equipment on their property and do some maintenance on their equipment. For instance, well drillers and excavators. With adequate screening, it should not make that much difference. I'd go along with anyone establishing a new business to have to go through the process. But we should look at grandfathering. LUKE: Nothing says they have to come in unless there is a complaint filed. It's all complaint driven. DALY: That's the issue. If one guy complains about everybody could put them all out of business overnight. LUKE: Not overnight. There's a process they have to follow, and if they meet the criteria they have the opportunity to make an application. And the fact that they have been there for a period of time benefits their application. DALY: I think we should bring the acreage down small enough so that it accomplishes this. MORROW: I think that what this proposal does, irregardless of acreage, is embrace and encompass a lot of businesses that are out there that in no way could be approved under our existing code. They now could be approved because they have outside storage, which isn't allowed under the existing code; and they have employees, which is not allowed under the existing code. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 10 of 22 Pages These are two things that this proposal does address. A lot of the businesses that you're talking about may still not come in and apply, but if someone did complain, at least the business qualifies now. DALY: It depends on the acreage limitation that we end up with. I don't have a problem with anything else. LUKE: To those in the audience, when we get through with our discussion, you will be allowed to comment if you want. What size are the lots in Woodside Ranch? DENNIS KRAKOW: Outside the urban growth boundary, most are 2-1/2 acres. In type 1, there are limitations of square footage of the house. Maybe you can get through Commissioner Daly's issue and limit the use to a certain percentage of the lot. MORROW: The Planning Commission talked about this; using a percentage of the parcel instead of using the lot size, and limiting the amount of outdoor storage rather than the size of the property. It's a different approach. SYRNYK: Right now, the proposal for types 2 and 3 includes limitations on the amount of floor area within the dwelling and accessory buildings. This would be something in addition to this, dealing with elements that might be outside of the buildings. MORROW: I think that the reason the Planning Commission decided not to take that particular approach in type 3 is because people testified that they have big machines in some cases that have to be parked outside. They also wanted to be able to consider type 3 on a case by case basis without specifying that. It is a different approach that was considered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 11 of 22 Pages There were several things discussed that we will include in the next draft. They are, notice required for type 2; and investigate how we can have the conditional use permit go with the business and person rather than with the land. The other thing is that I heard, and I think there is consensus, that you would go with five employees for RR -10 and MUA. LUKE: I think we should be consistent. SYRNYK: Just so we're clear, under type 3, we would allow up to five employees no matter what the zone, and is at least ten acres in size. MORROW: The acreage is the next thing. DALY: The zoning and employees would be consistent. DEWOLF: I'm good with ten acres. LUKE: Me, too; if it doesn't work, we will likely be reviewing it to address any problems. It's a good place to start. SYRNYK: The outside storage would also be allowed on ten acres. For a type 3 on two acres of MUA land, you could not have outside storage and only two employees. LUKE: What was the Planning Commission's justification for a one-half acre minimum size in type 2? I think they were trying to address a minimum size that would be adequate for parking. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 12 of 22 Pages LUKE: IF you will be reviewing these and doing mailings on type 2, and there's a person who wants to establish a business on a lot, will the Planning Department then look at the drainfield, reserve field, parking, and so on? Some half -acre lots could be very tight, depending on the size of the house and garage. Is this part of the review process? SYRNYK: It would be for a type 2, that they'd have to comply with the environmental and restrictions. We could also elicit comments from other departments and agencies as appropriate. DALY: What about businesses that were established years ago? MORROW: We have a provision to deal with that under the non -conforming use statute and provisions of our code. SYRNYK: Somebody could come in and, depending on what they've been doing, apply for a declaratory ruling to verify that they have a legal non -conforming use. MORROW: I thought there was a time limit. SYRNYK: Under our code, there's a time limit that we can't require someone to go back more than ten years. If they have been there for longer than ten years and they can prove it, they could qualify as a non -conforming use. SYRNYK: It would be an application for a declaratory ruling. One thing we need to discuss is the issue of fees for type 2 and 3. There are a couple of similar types of applications in the code now, similar to a type 2 permit. The fee is $585, which covers someone's application, prior notice, staff time for a site visit, writing the decision, and providing notice of the decision to the neighbors. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 13 of 22 Pages LUKE: If for some reason it has to go to a hearings officer, is there an additional fee? SYRNYK: Right now we don't have a hearings officer's fee I this. There's a different fee for a declaratory ruling if we determine up front that a hearing is needed. If there is opposition, it would be referred to a hearings officer. The department picks up the cost of that; it is subsidized. Fees are based on the average cost of a review. Some pay more than they should, and some less. The option for type 2 is the $585, and keeping the current fee of $1,040 for type 3. LUKE: What is the logic of delivery trucks not being counted as trips? /: ► l One of the things we talked about with the Planning Commission was what should be counted within the trip limitations. The thought was that a delivery to your home from FedEx or UPS would maybe occur once or twice a day. Maybe they could get a personal item and a business item at the same time. LUKE: If there's a family business, and a son and daughter work along with five employees, how is that addressed? MORROW: The definition allows people living there not to be counted. They must live in the household to be counted as members of the household; otherwise they are considered employees. Statute permits the employment on site of no more than five full-time or part-time persons. This might need to be clarified for type 3, with the five employees including anyone working at the site. DEWOLF: So if you have a family of six, and no outside employees. The family members can't all work on the family business? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 14 of 22 Pages SYRNYK: There could only be five persons working there. DALY: We would have to have a lot of cops to police this. DEWOLF: There will be things that come up over the next year, and we'll deal with them. This is helping people, and is dramatically less restrictive than what we now have. ffl' ' eylk Type 1 never existed before. The allowance for employees and outside storage didn't exist before. LUKE: Type 2 can have signs, correct? SYRNYK: Both types 2 and 3 would be allowed one sign, three square feet in area, ground or building mounted. They wouldn't have to get a sign permit for it. The placement and other issues would be reviewed in the permit process. Catherine Morrow left the meeting at this time. TINA LYONS: Before you adopt the rules, I would suggest that you specifically ask the planning division what parameters they are going to look at for types 2 and 3; what they are actually going to ask and how they are going to determine enough parking and adequate screening for type 3. SYRNYK: We have them fill out an application form, and ask them to be as descriptive as possible about hours of operation, where employees would park, and what kind of screening would be used for outside storage. We do require a site plan so we can see how things are laid out on site. One of the things we talked about is possibly modifying our application for home occupations to get more descriptive about getting this information so we can find out about employees, hours, operating characteristics, and what kind of other county, state or federal approvals they might need. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 15 of 22 Pages LYONS: What I was trying to say is to have that in writing so that you guys know for sure what is going to be required to make your determination. I'm going back to the half -acre size. I think it's a waste of the County's time to even consider a type 2 on a half -acre, because, as I said before, you'd need about six places to park, for occupants, employees and customers. And also the environmental review for the septic system and reserve area, and the building codes for setbacks of buildings. I maintain that a one -acre minimum should be required for a type 2. DEWOLF: Have you considered that, Damian? That sounds logical to me. I don't know, because I can't do those measurements in my head. DALY: I kind of agree - not with the acre requirement, but I think that before we make any decisions, all three Commissioners should have a clear concept of how big a five - acre parcel is. Maybe we should do the same thing on a half -acre and an acre. DALY: I know how big they are. Each parcel, depending on whether it is square or rectangle, needs to be looked at. They've got to do a plot plan. They've got to show where everything is. That's not rocket science; that's what is done every single day with applications. DEWOLF: So it will be determined if the type of business proposed would fit. That makes sense to me. SYRNYK: One thing that does happen before someone even comes in to write the check and file the application, they will visit with the planning division, and sometimes the building department and environmental health; and other agencies if required. What might happen is that a lot of proposals might be weeded out before they apply because they discover they can't do what they're thinking about. UNIDENTIFIED MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: You've answered a lot of my questions. I appreciate that. You've done a great job. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 16 of 22 Pages DENNIS KRAKOW: I live at 60033 Ridgeview Court, Bend. I am still concerned about the number of trips and employees. It seems to me that there is wear and tear on a site, with people moving around whether they live there or not during their work time. I'm concerned that they should all be counted as employees, and think the commuting trips of employees in and out should be counted as trips. The proposed code says trips to the property, one way. It seems like it should be counted as trips in and out. This could be clarified. I noticed that under type 3 we talk about trips per day, but this does not include parcel delivery services. It's a valid point to clarify, what we mean by a trip. Typically we consider a trip from point A to point B, and another trip from point B to point A as a second trip. KRAKOW: I'm concerned about trips by owners that are related to the business. I don't know who is going to be the trip cop in all this. DEWOLF: It's always going to be the neighbors. DALY: There's never going to be a trip cop. '• � . If I am concerned about a neighbor, how can I tell if he's going to the post office to get his mail, going to UPS to drop off the packages he's created, or if he's going to the gym for a workout? LUKE: By the same token, what if you had three kids in high school? You'd make a bunch of trips. You could have a family living in a residential area make a lot more trips than a business. '• U But that's part of the residential use of the home. Business trips are different. This business could have all of these kids, too, besides the other activity. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 17 of 22 Pages I think the idea is to protect the residential nature and allow someone to have a business if it doesn't impact the residential area. Somehow you need to screw down this trip things. I wish I had a way to do it. I support the idea of having some measurement of it, but I don't have it either. Maybe it will be necessary for the neighbors to worry about that. I think that you should at least define any business trip to include those by owners. DEWOLF: I agree with that. Are we clear that this would include employees coming to work? SYRNYK: That's a trip. The thing about the delivery trucks, I have a concern about that. A UPS truck is noisier than the average automobile. They park wherever they want. I think those should count as a trip. DEWOLF: I think they should, too. DALY: To me, I think we are getting too technical and detailed. In reality, who is the trip cop? 1N:7:�:Z�1� I agree, but as long as we are putting the trip thing in there, you should include all business trips, no matter who does it. DEWOLF: So, if UPS is coming every day instead of once every few weeks like they do for most of us, it's obvious it's because of the business. It should be a business trip. KRAKOW: That's just more traffic in the neighborhood. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 18 of 22 Pages HN -VA -54 One of the things that we can do by communicating this to an applicant, is to let them know that the number of trips needs to be limited, and maybe they could refine how they run the business. Does the Board want to include this? LUKE: I need time to think about this. DALY: I think you should take it out completely, because I don't think it matters. KRAKOW: The type 2 on a half -acre, it should include that they can't park any vehicles along the street, even if it's on their property. Imagine six cars on a half -acre lot, with a house and other buildings. LUKE: That's why there will be a site plan. For me, it will be tough to justify a business on a half -acre, but there could be properties where this can be done. DALY: You cold have a hairdresser with a couple of trips a day. Or a dog groomer. '• I I'm sensitive to the grandfathering clause. However, if a business qualified under the old rules, it should be allowed under the new rules. But since then I've learned that there are people who have businesses that apparently didn't qualify under the old rules but have been there for a long time. Have I heard it correctly that if the business has been there ten years, as long as they don't change how they are using the business, that's grandfathered? LUKE: If there had been several complaints, they wouldn't be there for ten years. KRAKOW: There's still the idea of new neighbors and all that. If the business has been there for ten years, is there anything that can be done? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 19 of 22 Pages LUKE: Oh, like moving next to the airport and then complaining about it? DEWOLF: There's a process that they can go through if they've been there for longer than ten years. It's not automatic, as I understand it. SYRNYK: It's not automatic. One of the things we would look at with respect to the ten-year period is to try to identify and put some parameters on the level of activity. If somebody has decided they want to move beyond that level of activity, they would have two routes. They could either propose to alter the non -conforming use, or they could come in and apply for a conditional use permit. KRAKOW: But it would go around all these rules. SYRNYK: If they try to alter the conditional use, they -- KRAKOW: If they keep their use? SYRNYK: If they keep their use, and they can be verified as a non -conforming use, they would not need to adhere to what is proposed. KRAKOW: I think for the people who are non -conforming and there less than ten years, they need some sort of phase-out time, too. So you don't just walk in and say to get out. LUKE: There is a process. DALY: You are talking about less than ten years. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 20 of 22 Pages KRAKOW: Yes. If the neighbors haven't complained, there should be a period of time, as long as the use hasn't changed. A grace period. DALY: The problem, of course, is like you said - a new neighbor moves in. The business has been there for a number of years with no complaints, but the new neighbor complains. Then the business owner has a problem. Another concern I have regarding some of these businesses with large equipment is that there is no place for them to go. There are no legal M-2 lots or property, other than large parcels, available. KRAKOW: We've talked about that. I think that the number one thing is to protect the neighborhood. So if the use has changed, then they need to go into the process. Even if the use doesn't change, you somehow have to have these rules apply to everyone eventually except the pre -land use people. DEWOLF: I think having had this whole process with the Planning Commission before it got to us, and all the input we have received over the months, this is a whole lot better than the existing regulations. I'm not convinced it's perfect, but I think it's a good document at this point, with the modifications that we've talked about today. KRAKOW: I can give you one good justification for putting the permit on the person and not the property. People may have certain relationships with their neighbors. If there is somebody new, that's a different situation. The neighbor may plow the driveway or something. The kids play together. With new neighbors, you have a whole new ball game. Being no further discussion or testimony offered, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a. m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 21 of 22 Pages DATED this 6 I Day of November 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dennis R. Lu , C air Tom DeWolf, CommissiosiVr Attachments Exhibit A: E-mail correspondence from Dennis Krakow (1 page) Exhibit B: E-mail correspondence from Tina Lyons (1 page) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Special Work Session Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 22 of 22 Pages Damian Syrnyk From: Dennis Krakow [krakowcpa@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:26 PM To: damian_syrnyk@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: Home occupations Damian, I sent this earlier today and copied you, but I had a typo on your address. Dennis Krakow Commissioners, Since I could not attend last week's hearing, I am writing this. I will attend tomorrow's work session and will answer any questions you have. I understand that it is not a public hearing. For brevity, I will not go into all of my concerns. Type 3 businesses should have the 20 acre minimum. Per the minutes, Commissioner DeWolf mentioned at the Oct. 28 meeting that the purpose of these rules is to protect residential areas. This implies that business development is not the purpose of these rules. I agree. Therefore, large equipment, etc. should only be allowed on large parcels. Even then, it should be garaged or screened. I am against all signs. The locations have an address ... why is a sign needed in a residential neighborhood? I can see the need for signs in business districts where lots, and therefore business, are close together. There was discussion about charging fees to appeal a decision that was made by staff without prior public notice. This seems entirely inappropriate. We are not charged to report a crime. All type 2 and 3 permits should go through a public notification and hearing, which will reduce the need for appeals. For type 2, 1/2 acre is too small. One acre is reasonable if parking is off street and screened or garaged. Each owner/family worker should count as an employee for type 2 and 3. Otherwise, you could have 5 workers at a site where 2 employees are allowed. The rules should focus on the number of workers and not the number of employees only. Employees coming to the home, then leaving to work elsewhere should count as an employee. What is the logic of delivery trucks not counting as business trips? Feel free to contact me in the short time before tomorrow's meeting. Sincerely, Dennis Krakow Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree Exhibit I} 1 Page / of / Page 1 of 1 Damian Syrnyk From: Tina [lyons@uci.net] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:12 AM To: Damian Syrnyk Subject: Fw: Home Occupations ----- Original Message ----- From: Tina To: board@co.deschutes.or.us Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:11 AM Subject: Home Occupations Commissioners: If put to a vote, I think the majority of Rural Residents would vote NO to relaxing the Ordinance. Why change the laws for the minority? People choose to live in rural America for its quality of life, beauty and simplicity. The Planning Division originally studied models in Counties surrounding urban areas, like Multnomah, Clackamas, Marion, Yamhill, City of Gresham, etc. Those areas are far different from rural Deschutes County. If you adopt their rules, I feel you are moving too fast for rural Oregon, east of the mountains. It should be pointed out that the screenwriter/telecommuter Is currently legal to have a business in their home right now. Please see the Current Rules on Home Occupations. If a business with a CUP is located next door, it should be disclosed in Real Estate Listings. As the original announcement stated: this may reduce property values. I want to thank you all for your earnest consideration of this important matter. I encourage you to follow the original intent of the LCDC. Thank you, Tina Lyons Exhibit Page _L of _ / 11/6/2003