ORC minutes 070517 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 from when the Table was created in 2011. Additionally, in previous discussions, the problem of calling a category such as 162 Retail by three different names in three different tables could expose the County to a lawsuit. The aim is to fix this problem 163 overall. Michael pointed to the first land use category to be reviewed in the Table of Permitted Uses: Agricultural Use (see 164 exclamation point symbol next to the category in the Table of Permitted Uses in ORC meeting materials). The proposed 165 change is a nomenclature change to identify or provide addition identification for land uses that have to abide by specific land 166 use criteria. Article 5 in the UDO has buffers, setbacks and other requirements and limitations, so Planning Staff is coming up 167 with a methodology that helps readers understand that there is further reading they have to do. The County Attorney’s Office 168 has not provided comments on that point, but they have asked Planning Staff to review the use of special symbology and 169 recommended that it be collapsed. Even though Staff may be using a different symbol than an exclamation point, there is 170 going to be a symbol in the Table of Permitted Uses to identify those categories that have special regulatory standards 171 associated with their development. The next area to review is definitions for land use categories. See the 172 Automotive/Transportation category. Planning Staff was identifying uses that were not specifically listed that could be allowed 173 in certain districts with a Special Use Permit (i.e. Automotive/Transportation Uses Not Listed Herein !). The County Attorney’s 174 most recent opinion on this category is that it will not withstand legal challenge, even with appropriate standards, and has 175 asked that it be deleted. So, there will no longer be a “catchall” category for any land use category. Planning Staff is working 176 with the County Attorney to ensure definitions pass legal sufficiency muster and capture activities that are encouraged in 177 association with the category. 178 179 Paul Guthrie remarked that Planning Staff is essentially creating a defacto “other” category. 180 181 Michael Harvey responded that based on James Bryan’s opinion as of a week ago, they are prohibited from having an “other” 182 or “catchall” category. 183 184 Tony Blake asked if that premise applies to all the land use categories. 185 186 Michael Harvey confirmed that yes; this applies to all land use categories. He then moved on to address the Adult, Child Care 187 and Educational categories. Michael reported that James Bryan, County Attorney, expressed concern that Adult Daycare 188 Home was too similar to Family or Group Care Homes, but after reviewing definitions and state licensing requirements, Mr. 189 Bryan determined his concern was not founded. Thus, the Adult Daycare Home category will remain. Much like a daycare for 190 children, the Adult Daycare Home land use category is designed to provide an opportunity for adults, elderly folks and others 191 to engage in social activities in somebody’s home. 192 193 Tony Blake asked if an Adult Daycare Home is similar to the program Visiting Angels? 194 195 Michael Harvey responded that the programming is similar, but it is not from the standpoint that the person bringing meals to 196 someone’s house is not being regulated, as it is not a land use activity. Using Tony Blake as an example, Michael said that 197 Tony delivering a meal to someone’s house or volunteering to spend some time in someone’s home is not, in his opinion, a 198 regulated activity. Tony would have a private agreement with the person living in the house or the organization. 199 200 Tony Blake asked if that the distinguishing point in this scenario is having a place of business or physical location for the 201 business. This question was followed-up with a question on mobile veterinary clinics. How is a mobile veterinary clinic 202 regulated? Why are mobile veterinary clinics not allowed in the Rural Buffer? 203 204 Michael Harvey responded that a mobile veterinary clinic is not allowed in the Rural Buffer from a staging standpoint. A 205 mobile veterinary clinic could come to someone’s house within the Rural Buffer to provide a service, but the mobile veterinary 206 clinic could not open the business and stage the business in the Rural Buffer. A property owner in the Rural Buffer cannot 207 engage cannot stage the business on his/her property. 208 209 Michael Harvey continued the presentation. The land use category Non Profit Educational Cooperative is being eliminated due 210 to its ambiguous definition. Planning Staff suspects that this category was originally created to provide opportunities for people 211 to have administrative offices providing multiple services and services to schools. However, this type of office is already 212 captured in the “Professional Office” category, so there is no need for this specific category. Furthermore, in regards to land 213 use, the County Attorney’s Office does not see a significant difference between a non-profit or for-profit status of the 214 organization. Regardless of that non-profit or for-profit, the impact will be the same. In review of the land use category of 215