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

Browse Search

4 At the January 9, 2013 Planning Board meeting, Board members discussed areas of interest for planning staff to address for the next year. One item, which was highlighted in the UDO Implementation Bridge report prepared when the LIDO was adopted in 2011, included the need to review existing home occupation standards for a potential revision. At that time, Board members expressed concern with the existing standards limiting home occupations by being too restrictive with the required square footage allowances and number of permitted non - residential employees. As a result, the Board requested staff to proceed with reviewing existing standards. To address the Planning Board's request, staff presented information at the July 10, 2013 Planning Board meeting, including a summary of current standards contained in the UDO, a comparison with other local jurisdictions' standards, and items of consideration to better facilitate and promote the use of home occupations. Following review and discussion, the Board asked staff to proceed with an amendment to the UDO addressing their comments and areas of interest relating to the UDO Implementation Bridge report. At the September 4 Planning Board meeting, staff presented draft language based on Planning Board comments received at the July meeting for review. Additionally, at this time, staff presented Section 419, Live/Work Units, from the 2012 North Carolina Building Code regarding the review and permitting of home occupations that are classified as live /work units. Although planning staff considers this Section of the building code, adopted in 2012, to be restrictive, local governments cannot amend laws, codes and /or rules adopted by the State. Staff anticipates that this Section of the building code will result in prospective home occupation applicants deciding to locate their home occupation in an accessory structure if the home occupation comprises of more than ten percent of their home's square footage. A copy of Section 419 is included at the end of this form. At the October 2 Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meeting staff presented proposed amendment language for Board comment. Following this meeting, planning staff identified concerns with the proposed recommendations and requested a meeting with the Planning Board Chair and Vice Chair to discuss and review the Board's recommendation. The Planning Board Vice Chair was unable to attend, but did provide comments regarding proposed recommendations to staff and the Planning Board Chair. At the October 16 meeting with Chair Hallenbeck proposed standards based on Planning Board's recommendation were revised in order to create a reasonable balance between supporting home based businesses in the county and protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods. Revised recommendations were presented at the November 6 ORC meeting. During this meeting, members stated concern with existing standards prohibiting specific uses from receiving a home occupation permit [See UDO Section 5.5.3(2)(a)(iii)], however, no specific amendment requests were made. 2