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

Browse Search

36 and mitigation measures are appropriate and called for. It is customary in development regulations to require mitigation of potential negative impacts, even if providing those mitigation measures requires an outlay of capital. It is understood by many people that capital costs are normally a part of starting a business. Comments received by the BOCC stated concerns with the proposed setback and screening waiver requirements being too great for property owners to meet and may limit the amount of developable area on their piece of property to construct an accessory structure. The attachments following this narrative depict the proposed setback standards for a minor and major home occupation on a variety of sample real -life parcels in Orange County. Attachments 1 to 3 demonstrate the setback standards currently in place and proposed for an accessory structure utilized in a minor home occupation. Additionally, Attachments 4 to 6 depict the 40 foot setback standard required on tracts approximately one (1) to twelve (12) acres in size if a screening waiver is requested because appropriate screening is not provided onsite. The attachments show the large portion of the property that is still developable with these setback standards in place. Attachments 7 and S depict the forty (40) foot setback standard proposed for an accessory structure utilized in a major home occupation on tracts approximately five (5) to twelve (12) acres in size. The attachments illustrate the large portion of the property that is still developable with these setback standards in place. In addition, Attachments 9 and 10 depict the proposed setback standards required for accessory on tracts approximately five (5) to twelve (12) acres in size if a screening waiver is requested because appropriate screening is not provided onsite. While the requirements can be limiting depending on the shape of the parcel, the proposed setback standards are very unlikely to completely restrict the construction of an accessory structure on site. In any instances where a hardship exists due to the shape of the parcel or other reason, the variance process is available to property owners to pursue alternative standards. A final comment received from the BOCC recommended the need to review setback and screening standards based on the proposed use to be conducted in the home occupation. While this is a recommendation the Planning Board can review and discuss, it is important to note that proposed standards have become more comprehensive providing for greater options for different home based businesses. The amendment may be lengthened to include standards based on the specific use to be conducted in the home occupation. However, it is important to consider that similar home based businesses conducting the same use can have varying impacts depending on size, number of employees, visitors, client base, and production. In regards to the BOCC comment regarding potential impacts from the operation of trade uses as a home occupation, planning staff believes the standards, as currently written, will provide sufficient protection to neighbors of such uses. However, if the existing and proposed setback and screening requirements are changed, taking another look at impacts of certain potential home occupations uses would be warranted. The amendment provides the means to limit conflict and impacts while providing a sufficient balance between expanding the opportunity for home based businesses to operate in residential districts and protecting the residential character of neighborhoods. Without the existing and proposed regulations, an imbalance may create conflict and disharmony within a residential district. These issues may then lead to complaints and enforcement issues that cannot be mediated without standards in place to enforce. Unfortunately, similar to many standards, situations may arise that cannot meet the A