Agenda - 05-20-2014 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Excerpt of Minutes Attachment 7 64 Approved 5/7/14 1 MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 APRIL 2,2014 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT' Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar 8 Grove Township, Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative, 9 Andrea Rohrbacher,At-Large Chapel Hill Township;James Lea,Cedar Grove Township Representative 10 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT' Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative, Buddy Hartley, Little River Township 13 Representative, Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township, Vacant- Eno Township Representative, Vacant- 14 Hillsborough Township Representative,Vacant-At-Large, 15 16 17 STAFF PRESENT' Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, 18 Special Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner;Tina Love,Administrative Assistant II 19 20 ****** 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 9' UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—HOME OCCUPATION: To review 23 certain aspects of the Planning Board- and Planning Director-initiated amendments to the 24 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding Home Occupations. At the February 18, 25 2014 BOCC meeting, the BOCC referred this item back to the Planning Board and staff for 26 further consideration. 27 Presenter Ashley Moncado,Special Projects Planner 28 29 Ashley Moncado Reviewed abstract. 30 31 Paul Guthrie If everybody read the minutes of the last meeting, I won't repeat those. I am concerned, while I 32 understand from a practical standpoint how this proposal is organized, it is visualized as protection of residential 33 neighborhood but in many cases, it will be governing places that under no definition would be a residential 34 neighborhood I understand this is a practical problem of how you define things; it tends to make it easier for people 35 with larger properties and more money to own those properties in order to get into some of the businesses this tends 36 to regulate. I have some concern about that as you get into rural areas because I think that is an unfair balance we 37 don't need to get in to. In many cases,this will be a case of selective enforcement because I don't think the planning 38 department, even in its best day, can totally enforce this because the number of instances that may be used without 39 going through the permitting process so I am always concerned about government regulations where it will be 40 impractical to totally enforce. After reading this I read the intergovernmental sections which suggests to me that parts 41 if not all of this may be actually enforced and moderated by jurisdictions other than the County of Orange because of 42 the enforcing standards where there is contract in areas near cities,town,etc. I would like a better explanation that if 43 this is adopted who will enforce it. I think that is a fair question for the Commissioners. Finally,for a minor permit to 44 require a $90 upfront one-shot cost is pushing the creditability of the staff because the minor permit involves the 45 description of two pieces of paper that will clearly show it is or is not eligible for a minor permit. 46 47 Herman Staats: I like the comment made that the goal is try to balance use of a home as a residence versus use of 48 a home as a business. I think that is something we need to keep in mind with all the discussions we have here We 49 need to find the balance that allows for some small business while also allowing people who have their homes 50 nearby to enjoy them I would like to hear more discussion about the proposed changes and concerns about 51 setbacks and things and see the recommendations. 52 53 James Lea: No comment. 54 1