INC NEWS - 2 things as neighborhoods meet this month
Barry Ragin
bragin at nc.rr.com
Mon Jan 8 22:04:10 EST 2007
1. No display of goods, products or services shall be visible off site.
3. No outside storage use or activity (except parking) shall be associated
with the home occupation.
seems to me that even if a home based auto repair business was allowed or licensed, storing a bunch of tires would have violated those parts of the code.
I'll keep that in mind the next time an issue like this arises.
Thank you very much, Pat.
Barry Ragin
pat carstensen wrote:
> THis is the relevant text of the ordinance. Page 56-67 of Article 5 if you
> want to look it up.
>
> Home Occupations
> When allowed, home occupations shall be subject to the following additional
> regulations:
> A. Generally
> The following requirements shall apply to all home occupations:
> 1. No display of goods, products or services shall be visible off site.
> 2. Only handmade items, foodstuffs, and crafts made on the premises may be
> offered directly for sale. No goods, products or commodities bought or
> secured
> for the express purpose of resale shall be sold at retail or wholesale on
> the
> premises. Catalog and electronic business orders may be received for goods,
> products or commodities bought or secured for the express purpose of resale
> at
> retail and wholesale when the products are received and shipped from the
> premises to fulfill catalog or electronic business orders.
> 3. Traffic and parking associated with the use shall not be detrimental to
> the
> neighborhood or create congestion on the street where the home occupation is
> located. Vehicles used primarily as passenger vehicles shall be permitted in
> connection with the home occupation. Only one commercially licensed vehicle
> shall be allowed, except in the RS-20 and RR districts, where up to two
> heavy
> equipment vehicles may be permitted. All heavy equipment vehicles associated
> with a home occupation permit shall be screened from view from adjoining
> properties and the public right of way.
> 4. No equipment or process shall be used in connection with the home
> occupation
> that creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical
> interference that
> is detectable off-site.
> 5. No hazardous materials may be manufactured, stored, processed or disposed
> of
> on the premises
>
> Section B is on on Rural Stuff
>
> C. Other Home Occupations
> In all residential districts other than RR, or in RR-zoned properties less
> than ten
> acres, the following standards apply in addition to the standards of
> paragraph A.
> above:
> 1. Only persons residing on the premises and up to one nonresident employee
> may
> be engaged in the home occupation.
> 2. The home occupation shall be clearly incidental to the primary use as a
> residence. The total square footage devoted to the home occupation shall not
> exceed 30% of the floor area of the livable portion of the dwelling.
> Internal
> alterations or construction modifications not customary in dwellings shall
> be
> prohibited. Exterior modifications to the dwelling to accommodate the home
> occupation shall be prohibited.
> 3. No outside storage use or activity (except parking) shall be associated
> with the
> home occupation.
>
>
>
>> From: "RW Pickle" <randy at 27beverly.com>
>> To: "Barry Ragin" <bragin at nc.rr.com>
>> CC: inc-list at durhaminc.org
>> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - 2 things as neighborhoods meet this month
>> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:50:19 -0500 (EST)
>>
>> I can see where it would be a violation if the party was running a tire
>> business. But just having tires doesn't sound like a violation.
>>
>> For example, I bought a tow truck several years ago in Boston to transport
>> a disabled dune buggy I had in New Jersey back to NC (it was more cost
>> effective to do it this way instead of paying for a tow). When the tow
>> truck arrived back here at the house, it wasn't 2 days before Planning and
>> Zoning enforcement personel were out here asking questions. It had been
>> reported I was running a business over here and it looked like it was
>> towing (as they suggested). After I answered their questions, they left
>> and decided there was no violation. It';s okay to own a personal tow
>> truck, so there was no issue.At least not for me. It wasn't that I was
>> running a business at all, but some neighbor didn't like it because they
>> had to drive by and see a tow truck parked in my driveway. It continued to
>> bother them and I saw those enforcement personel again about 2 weeks
>> later. There was nothing anyone (but me) could do about the fact that
>> someone didn't like seeing the tow truck. And eventually, when I finished
>> with it, I resold it.
>>
>> Perhaps that is the case with the tires. It's not illegal, but folks just
>> don't like looking at them. If it's a tire business, then that's another
>> deal.
>>
>> Frank Duke is on this list, perhaps he'll comment.
>>
>> RWP
>>
>>
>>
>>> Wonderful news. Maybe the planning department will be able to enforce
>>> that part of the ordinance as well. When an inspector came out last
>>> year, we were told that the 16 tires stacked on the porch and the end of
>>> the driveway were not a violation.
>>>
>>> Barry Ragin
>>>
>>> RW Pickle wrote:
>>>
>>>> This particular ordinance change only deals with "livable" interior
>>>> space
>>>> and home occupations. Exterior space used as a business has to have
>>>> proper
>>>> zoning in order to be a business at all (I think). There is a part of
>>>> this
>>>> particular ordinance that specifically states there can be no outdoor
>>>> activity or outdoor storage that can be viewed by others.
>>>>
>>>> RWP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As i've said in the past, i am much less concerned by an accountant or
>>>>> a
>>>>> web designer working in an 800 sq. foot piece of their house than i am
>>>>> about a pit bull breeder, fighting bird seller, or auto repair
>>>>>
>> business
>>
>>>>> operating unlicensed with no restrictions in a residential
>>>>> neighborhood.
>>>>> All of which i've experienced on my block within the past 18 months
>>>>> with
>>>>> no enforcement mechanism in place at all. Who knows how much brake
>>>>> fluid
>>>>> or used motor oil made it into the storm draim on my block?
>>>>>
>>>>> Barry Ragin
>>>>> 1706 Shawnee St.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: RW Pickle <randy at 27beverly.com>
>>>>> Date: Monday, January 8, 2007 12:05 pm
>>>>> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - 2 things as neighborhoods meet this month
>>>>> To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding telecommuters, according to T.E. Austin of the Planning
>>>>>> Department, as he interpreted the clause, it could. But he said his
>>>>>> answerwas 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'
>>>>>> (88square 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
>>>>>> deskwith 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
>>>>>> homeoffice 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
>>>>>> withwhat 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
>>>>>> relativeto 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
>>>>>> than30% 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> INC-list mailing list
>>>>>> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>>>>>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> ====================================================================
>>>> This e-mail, and any attachments to it, contains PRIVILEGED AND
>>>> CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)
>>>> or
>>>> entity named on the e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient of
>>>> this
>>>> e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the
>>>> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
>>>> dissemination or copying of this e-mail in error is strictly
>>>>
>> prohibited.
>>
>>>> If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please
>>>> notify
>>>> me by telephone (919-489-0576) or by electronic mail to the sender of
>>>> this email, RW Pickle (pickle at patriot.net) immediately.
>>>> =====================================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> ====================================================================
>> This e-mail, and any attachments to it, contains PRIVILEGED AND
>> CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) or
>> entity named on the e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient of this
>> e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the
>> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
>> dissemination or copying of this e-mail in error is strictly prohibited.
>> If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify
>> me by telephone (919-489-0576) or by electronic mail to the sender of
>> this email, RW Pickle (pickle at patriot.net) immediately.
>> =====================================================================
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INC-list mailing list
>> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list