Minutes

Planning and Zoning Workshop

June 26, 2003

Members present: Jane Kirby, Marc Paulson, Mary Ann Luedtke, Toby Schnuerle, Doug Reoch, Jacob Epstein, Donna Standley. Members absent: Jim Paulus, Rod Barcklay. Staff present: Mike Weland.

Luedtke called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. Staff report was given on the evolution thus far of the home business provisions. Members concurred with the deletion of paragraph H and with the title, “home business occupation certificate.” Reoch asked why the current provisions didn’t suffice; Luedtke stated that the current provisions are vague and were subject to abuse. Epstein said it was his opinion that a home business should be nearly invisible, and stated that the draft composed by staff came close to what he felt it should be. He stated that, by it’s nature, a home business must be quiet and appropriate to the neighborhood. Luedtke asked about “home” businesses specific to Boundary County, such as gypo loggers and construction workers, where equipment and materials are typically stored at home. Discussion was held on growth of a business to determine at what point a “home” business became a conditional or special use. Following discussion, staff offered the following, to be included in ordinance sections covering home business occupation certificates, conditional use permits and special use permits:

“Upon approval of a (Home Business Occupation Certificate, Special Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit) the specifications in the application and limits specified on the permit shall be the controlling documents for that use, and any expansion or alteration shall require additional permitting processes.”

Reoch stated that the idea of business is to grow and expand, and questioned whether the proposal hampered the ability for a business to grow; Paulson stated that he is not against business, but was concerned about a neighbor’s right to enjoy the use of their property. After discussion, it was determined that requiring additional permits to accommodate growth did not preclude a business from growing, but were necessary parts of that growth.

Discussion was held on the life of the home business occupation permit. Staff stated that Conditional and Special Uses were for the life of the use and automatically transferred to subsequent owners, members determined that home businesses differed in that the primary use of the property remained residential. Following discussion, staff offered the following:

“Home business occupation certificates shall belong to the applicant and shall not be transferable.”

Luedtke noted that the language incorporated in the definition proposed by staff was difficult to read. Epstein noted that the language precluded signage as allowed in Section 6. Following discussion, staff proposed:

“A home business occupation is hereby defined as any use intended for fiscal gain conducted on the same parcel on which the primary residence of the owner is located. There shall be no modification to the exterior of the residence, any accessory structure or to the parcel which reveals the existence of a business from outside view, with the exception of signage as permitted in Section 6A, this chapter. A home business shall create no traffic, noise, dust or other nuisances in excess of that customary in the neighborhood in which the enterprise is proposed.”

Following further discussion, members instructed staff to incorporate the changes as stated and to place discussion of application AM 03-02 on the agenda of the next regular meeting.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.