OCPB minutes 040214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 5/7/14 5 code. It is incumbent upon the property owner to do their due diligence and determine what regulations, if any, are 215 applicable for anything they are proposing to do. 216 217 Tony Blake: It seems the ‘structure built with suitable residential construction materials to resemble’ is subjective and 218 could use a statement that says ‘compliments’ or ‘the same as adjacent or neighborhood construction’. I think one of 219 the reasons for this is to get people who have home base businesses to come into compliance and possibly pay 220 taxes and be part of the structure than flying under the wire. I am curious as to if there is a non-conforming existing 221 use where someone has been there for a while and now with this ordinance, can you make them? 222 223 Michael Harvey: As we have stipulated during the public hearing, we do have non-conforming regulations in the 224 UDO that specify that a use that was legal at the time it was created made illegal by amendment to the code is 225 allowed to continue, there are limits. This regulation liberalizes several existing situations that make establishing a 226 home occupation easier. There are structures that already exist as part of the home occupation that may not comply 227 with setback. We will not require people to bring those structures into compliance with code if adopted. 228 229 Pete Hallenbeck: In general, you can’t shut down a currently legal operation with a zoning change. 230 231 Paul Guthrie: Has there been any consideration by the county attorney as to whether or not the way you have 232 separated this proposed ordinance that it violates the Equal Protection of Laws under the United States Constitution? 233 234 Michael Harvey: You would have to ask the county attorney but I will tell you and Ashley will confirm it, the county 235 attorney reviewed and signed off on this proposal. 236 237 Paul Guthrie: Even though two activities in two different locations and the sole difference in permitting and non-238 permitting is the size of the property they exist on. 239 240 Michael Harvey: We currently have that same distinction in zoning districts throughout the county and it doesn’t 241 violate the equal protection clause. Different zoning districts, different scenarios of the property breed different 242 standards and evaluation. That is already a constant within zoning ordinances throughout the county. 243 244 Paul Guthrie: Once the ordinance is passed, how will the organization communicate to the general public these new 245 standards? 246 247 Ashley Moncado: We will provide a source on the county website through our division with the new information to 248 contact me directly regarding questions. We will also have a press release to the local newspaper and a possible 249 outreach meeting. Based on how home occupations operate on a case-by-case basis it may be more difficult to do 250 one mass meeting because a lot will be a case-by-case basis on how it will affect an individual. If adopted we are 251 proposing a delay in implementation until July 1 to give staff time to get the information out. If it goes to May 8, we 252 are looking at a delay until July 1 for implementation. 253 254 Paul Guthrie: This is a permit fee, has there been consideration whether it could be considered tax? 255 256 Craig Benedict: It is not based on the value of the property. It is based on what the cost is to provide a review of the 257 proposal. It is based on personnel and time it is not based on property values. 258 259 Paul Guthrie: So you can document the average cost to review? 260 261 Craig Benedict: Yes. That is how we based it. 262 263 Michael Harvey: I would like to add the elected officials of the county set the fees not the planning staff. 264 265 Paul Guthrie: That is irrelevant to the question. 266 267 Michael Harvey: I disagree and I would refute that answer. 268