Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
August 7, 1996 Planning Board Minutes <br /> 18 <br /> would not be increased on existing non-conforming structures would address this <br /> concern and Mr. Styers agreed. <br /> Strayhorn asked if a tower is removed whether another tower could be placed on the <br /> site or must the entire process be followed again. Willis responded that the entire <br /> application process would have to be followed to place a tower on a site where one <br /> has been removed. Strayhorn asked what could occur in the fall zone around the <br /> tower. Willis responded that the fall zone had been replaced with specific setback <br /> requirements. <br /> MOTION: Strayhorn moved to approve the proposed amendment as recommended by the <br /> Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> (2) Article 6.16.6 Regulations Concerning Home Occupations <br /> Presentation by Mary Willis. <br /> This item is to consider a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance provisions <br /> relating to home occupations. <br /> The existing home occupation regulations are contained in Article 6.16.6.1 through <br /> 6.16.6.4. <br /> Concerns with home occupation provisions have been raised on several occasions in <br /> recent years,particularly in relation to the type of activity allowed and the location <br /> of accessory buildings. Proposed revisions were presented for public hearing in <br /> 1992 and 1995,but were not adopted due to the preference of the Board of <br /> Commissioners to deal with the home occupation provisions as a whole,rather than <br /> modifying particular standards. <br /> The proposed amendment seeks to clarify the intent of home occupation regulations, <br /> provide greater emphasis on performance standards,and simplify the text. <br /> The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on June 26, 1996. One <br /> citizen spoke in opposition to the amendment. Concerns expressed included the <br /> restrictions on size and appearance of accessory buildings,and the size limitations <br /> for delivery trucks,particularly for home occupations which would be located on <br /> very large parcels and would have no impacts on the surrounding properties. <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment(copy an <br /> attachment to these minutes on pages ) <br /> Strayhorn expressed concern with treating a small lot the same as a larger lot. <br /> Strayhom continued that many farmers have a welding business located on their <br /> farms and the supplies needed for such a business could not be delivered in/on a <br /> pickup truck. Willis responded that one of the greatest issues regarding home <br /> occupations has been the issue of traffic and the size of vehicles. That is the reason <br /> for trying to address vehicle size in the proposed amendments. Traffic impact has <br /> been one factor to help determine whether an occupation qualifies as a true home <br /> occupation. <br />