Agenda - 05-08-2014 - 7c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

34 December and January Planning Board Following the November Quarterly Public Hearing, the amendment was brought back to the December Planning Board meeting in order to discuss concerns raised by the BOCC and Planning Board. At this time, staff discussed revisions to the proposed amendment in regards to allowing previously unpermitted uses, including plumbing, electrical, and building contracting, to be allowed to operate in a residential district with an approved home occupation permit. Additionally, during this meeting the Board and staff discussed concerns with screening standards and negative visual impacts that may result from revising existing language. Comments received by the Planning Board were addressed within the amendment by allowing previously unpermitted uses to operate as a home occupation and providing a waiver from screening requirements with existing vegetation and /or increased setbacks. At the January 8, 2014 Planning Board meeting, Board members reviewed the revised standards based on comments received at the November Quarterly Public Hearing and the December 4, 2013 Planning Board meeting. Members voted 7 -1 to recommend approval of the UDO text amendment as presented by staff. Comments received from the dissenting Board member during this meeting were in regards to the existing permit fee, enforcement, and the proposed amendment limiting economic development in the county. February 18, 2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting The proposed amendment was presented for adoption consideration at the February 18, 2014 BOCC meeting. During discussion, Board members stated concerns with standards contained within the proposed amendment. One item of concern included screening standards required for accessory structures utilized in a home occupation. This standard is currently existing in the UDO and required for all home occupations in the county. Board members stated that this standard may create an economic hardship for residents wishing to pursue a home occupation and questioned the need of the standard when existing language requires accessory structures to be built with residential construction materials. Members also questioned the fairness and necessity of this standard since residential accessory structures in general do not require screening and some benign home based businesses (i.e. accountant's office) would not create a substantial impact to adjacent properties requiring screening. The second item of concern highlighted by the BOCC focused on setback standards for accessory structures utilized in a major home occupation. Board members stated that the increased setbacks for an accessory structure in a major home occupation may be difficult for residents to meet, which may limit their opportunity to construct and utilize an accessory structure as part of their home occupation. In addition, Board members questioned the fairness and necessity of this standard since residential accessory structures in general are not required to meet increased setbacks beyond the zoning district's principal setbacks. A final item of concern recognized by the BOCC was in regards to the setback standards allowing for a waiver from screening requirements for an accessory structure utilized in a minor or major home occupation. Concerns raised by Board members recommended a decrease in these standards since the proposed setbacks may be too great for some residents to meet and qualify for a waiver from screening requirements. During the meeting, individual Board members identified concerns with the standards for being too limiting and questioned their need and fairness, however, other Board members recognized the need and importance of the existing and proposed standards due to the expansion of home occupation uses in residential districts. 0