Agenda - 02-18-2014 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

11 1 He said there are many limits being played with in the effort to preserve character, such 2 as size of structures, number of visits and size of trucks. He said there are many opinions, and 3 there have been many discussions. He said the changes to the minor uses were designed to 4 bring the various municipal and rural rules a little closer to the municipality rules. 5 Pete Hallenbeck said the size limits are interesting because there are two different kinds 6 of rural character; one is where you have a farm with the normal and expected traffic and noise, 7 and the other is a big lot residential community where no one wants that farm experience. He 8 said this makes many of these decisions hard. 9 He referred to the plumbing example and said no one had a problem if a plumber simply 10 owned a truck or two at their house. He said there is a point however, where the business 11 would be big enough that it should be moved to an office park like Millstone Drive. 12 Pete Hallenbeck said he likes the idea of changing the goal of the document from 13 promoting business to promoting a balance between business and residential. He said that 14 wording will help people make better decisions for this living document in the future. 15 He said the other thing that everyone is wrestling with is balancing the impact more than 16 restricting certain occupations. He likes the idea of screening and setbacks, and he said 17 perhaps the planning board can look at this. He said perhaps a building that is 500 feet from 18 the property would not need shrubbery. 19 Pete Hallenbeck said he has 1500 square feet of work space over the garage and 1000 20 square feet in his basement, both used for different types of projects. He shares this as an 21 example of that balancing act of putting a limit on square footage, putting a limit on the activities, 22 or putting a limit on what can be seen, heard, or smelled, as well as the traffic count. 23 Lisa Stuckey thinks it makes more sense to get rid of the language on page 15 regarding 24 the building businesses. She feels the language should focus more on the visual impact of the 25 businesses. She thinks these home businesses should be invisible to neighbors 26 Paul Guthrie said he has had some questions, as reflected in the minutes. He said he 27 has been skeptical, not of the concept, but of the specificity of the language. He said one 28 example is the provision for barriers and buffers, which requires an 80 foot space between 29 activities and neighbors. He said this is over half an acre and, coupled with other issues, puts a 30 real barrier on people who want to operate on their own property. 31 He said ever time he reads this document he sees a new issue, and this tells him this 32 process needs to be carefully considered. He said this can be accommodated with a 33 reasonable degree of judicial flexibility, so as not to impede people's ability to make a living. 34 Paul Guthrie said this is just part of the working life today. He said 50 percent of his 35 neighbors have been involved in a home business of some sort, and he has a daughter who 36 telecommutes from London. He said this is symbolic of the new world we live in, and it must be 37 thought through in coming to a final conclusion on this issue. 38 Maxecine Mitchell said she would like to address Commissioner Rich's question about 39 public input. She said she is an average person, and she may start a home business. She 40 does not want all of these restrictions so that she would potentially have to move out if the 41 business did well. She also does not want to discourage other people from creating a business. 42 Ashley Moncado proposed a revision to the recommendation. She requested this be 43 brought back to the February 18th meeting, in order to allow time to work with the planning board 44 to address the concerns highlighted tonight. 45 Chair Jacobs said this seems more practical. 46 47 A motion was made by Renee Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich: 48 • To receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance. 49 • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on 50 the proposed amendment. 39