INC NEWS - 2 things as neighborhoods meet this month

[RW Pickle]

Regarding telecommuters, according to T.E. Austin of the Planning
Department, as he interpreted the clause, it could. But he said his answer
was not the definitive one. I guess if there was some issue, it would be
dealt with in the same manner other zoning issues are dealt with. The
latter statement is just my guess.

But most telecommuters I know use only a small portion of the livable
space for an office (if you're going to take tax deductions for having a
home office, it has to be dedicated space). Even under the old zoning
rules with a maximum cap (400 square feet), the home office could be 20' X
20' (which is huge). My home office for example is roughly 11' X 8' (88
square feet). Less than half of that space is office; the rest of it is
filled with other crap. I count 4 computers, a scanner, an L shaped desk
with bookcase, etc. for office stuff. It's a lot of stuff in this small of
a space (and there's still room to move, but not much because of all the
other crap across the floor that seems to accumulate here). It's safe to
assume there is only a path to my chair at my desk. The whole office is
really in need of being cleaned out of all of this other crap. But it all
has to go somewhere I guess. My wife has the same size space and has a lot
more room (even though it's the same size; she has less crap all over the
floor space). So even under the old square footage cap, here are 2 home
office work areas in less than 180 square feet. Even with 2 spaces, that's
less than half the maximum cap that existed in the past.  If I went with
what is there now (with no maximum square footage cap, just the less than
30% rule), I could have a 1000+ square feet dedicated to a home office
(ten+ times more than I currently use!). I think the ordinance is relative
to like a doctor or lawyer practicing out of their home where they might
have a waiting room and need some additional space. That's the example I
keep hearing as it relates to the ordinance in general.

The difference between a "maximum square footage cap" and the "less than
30% of the livable space" rule is not incidental. It is possible for it to
be a huge difference. Therein lies the issue.

RWP


> Does the "Home Occupation" rule cover telecommuters?
>
> -Colin Crossman
> Walltown
>
> RW Pickle wrote:
>> The first is an INC piece of business.
>>
>> Please mention this at your Jan. neighborhood meetings. This is the
>> first
>> year where we are starting our calendar dues year, to run with the
>> calendar year (Jan.-Dec.). So from here on out (unless we change it for
>> some unknown reason), INC dues will become due in Jan. for that
>> particular
>> year. This should make it easy for everyone to remember. Our dues are
>> still a bargain; $25 for the whole neighborhood organization! So send in
>> your dues for 2007! You can mail them to me (the Treasurer) at:
>>
>> Randy Pickle
>> 27 Beverly Dr.
>> Durham, 27707-2223
>>
>> Make checks payable to INC (or the Inter Neighborhood Council)
>>
>> The second item I'd like to get some feedback on relates to an upcoming
>> change in the UDO I have requested. The first week in Feb. (on the 7th),
>> the Joint City County Planning Committee meets to discuss the addition
>> of
>> a maximum square footage for "home occupations" as found within the UDO
>> regulations. For the last 20 or so years (in the City), it has been 400
>> square feet or less than 30% of the livable space. When we adopted the
>> new
>> UDO last year, we left off a maximum cap of square footage (like the 400
>> square feet it once was) and just left it at less than 30% of the
>> livable
>> space. Their meeting in Feb. will be to discuss adding a maximum cap to
>> the UDO (as it was in the past before the UDO was adopted). See if there
>> are any feeling one way or the other about how much square footage
>> should
>> be allowed from your groups. There are a number of options:
>>
>> * make it the 400 square feet that it always has been
>>
>> * increase the square footage to ???
>>
>> * leave it at 30% and allow any size cap as long as it meets this
>> requirement
>>
>> * or any other solution you might want
>>
>> This will just be the first meeting to discuss the change. If they
>> decide
>> to do so, there will be the usual public comment periods etc. as it
>> moves
>> through the system toward being adopted. Frank Duke asked me what we
>> wanted for a cap; I'm asking you if the 400 square feet it has always
>> been
>> will work? He said he wouldn't oppose the ammendment, he just wanted a
>> square footage figure that was thought to be the magic number.
>>
>> Just ask your neighborhood group and see what they think. Send any
>> comments you might have to me off the list server.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> RWP
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INC-list mailing list
>> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>>
>