ORC minutes 010417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 2.1.17 10 Michael Harvey: The best answer I’m going to give you is you don’t need to look at this from the standpoint… I think if you 476 continue to look at this in the standpoint of whether it’s a principal or accessory you’re going to get lost in the weeds. You 477 need to look at this as these are principal uses. And the weeds are going to get thick anyway. My job here tonight is I’m 478 providing you some specific examples, you’re giving me some direction, which I appreciate, and I think you’re getting the idea 479 of the complexity that this is going to be. You’re going to have these types of conundrums. And it gets worse as I point out on 480 page 41 with retail where you have 60 independent land uses that constitute retail. With restaurants you get to the same 481 problem. You’ve got 30 different uses for restaurants so a lot of these are going to become their own, new land use category 482 with a list of uses. And we’re going to be recommending where they go. Right now we just have a general colloquial term 483 building contractors. The NAICS code breaks it down even further. Residential building contractors, heavy and civil 484 engineering construction offices, this is the level of detail that we’re going to be looking to provide. 485 486 Paul Guthrie: Are the attorneys then going to make you translate that into relevant State law? Citations for instance, licensing 487 for certain types of construction and building? 488 489 Michael Harvey: I think the fairest way I’m going to answer that Paul is to say that we’re going to list a specific land use that is 490 going to be allowed or not allowed. Whatever license you have to get to legally have that land use will drive whether or not 491 you’re really going to do it. So it’s kind of a dual end sword. 492 493 Tony Blake: So I kind of see the problem with the NAICS code here because I look at this construction and I see new single 494 family housing construction except for for sale builders and then 236117 new housing for sale builders. There’s not a 495 difference as far as I can tell but if you would omit one of them then somebody’s going to claim to be that and be unrestricted. 496 I see that so the minute you say you’re using the NAICS code you immediately become subject to every little… so I’m just 497 echoing that concern. 498 499 Michael Harvey: Yeah, because what I’ve heard from all of you so far is it’s a neat list but I’m not hearing a lot of oohing and 500 ahhing about getting into bed with the NAICS code. And I’m certainly not going to dissuade you of that. 501 502 Lisa Stuckey: I don’t even know what the NAICS code is. 503 504 Michael Harvey: Well the NAICS code is was originally looked at as a way of trying to categorize and catalogue what activities, 505 what land uses, what business you had to make counting for the census perspective easier. We’ve got this many of this, this 506 many of this, this many of this. And there were some attempts early on to say this should just be the definitive land use code 507 for this land use category. The problem with NAICS is, as Perdita pointed out to you a lot, it only covers a certain spectrum of 508 allowable land uses. It doesn’t touch residential, for example. Like single family or some of the other activities. So what I’m 509 hearing you all say and looking at the glazed look in your eyes, because trust me I get it too going through NAICS code, is that 510 NAICS is a good guide but you’d prefer to have something in a vernacular that you have a little more connection with without 511 referencing section numbers and without getting into this level of detail of, “Do we really care for for sale builders, not for sale 512 builders?”. And if you’re asking me, “Do I want to get to that level of minutia to say that Paul, who is a Spec builder, and Tony, 513 who is a custom house builder, can’t have an office in the same zoning district?” it’s a house. And if everybody’s ok with that 514 that’s why we have the footnote there to say… 515 516 Tony Blake: And the overwhelming majority of them are probably doing both anyway. 517 518 Michael Harvey: Correct. 519 520 Paul Guthrie: Let me just point out one little subversive tool for you when you’re talking with the attorney… You get into some 521 of this kind of stuff, is the Byrd agreement taking without due process under the law? And it’s a good question to ask him 522 because some of the things we’re saying here would, in fact, be a taking. 523 524 Lydia Wegman: I don’t think it’s a due process thing. 525 526 Michael Harvey: Well I think where Paul’s headed with this, quite bluntly, is the argument that local government is not 527 providing you sufficient detail in what you can do with your property and as a result that’s an adverse impact that results in the 528