INC NEWS - INC-list Digest, Vol 25, Issue 8
Duke, Frank
Frank.Duke at durhamnc.gov
Tue Jan 9 07:42:38 EST 2007
Having tires stored outside your home, so long as the tires are not used
in connection with a business is not a zoning violation. Many of the
things we receive complaints about are not violations. Since July, we
have investigated 782 different complaints; 444 resulted in a notice of
violation (indicating a zoning violation) and the remaining 338 were not
a violation at all.
I also need to acknowledge that some outdoor activities are allowed with
home occupations; for example, operation of a day care home (a day care
facility operated out of the operator's home with no more than five
pre-school children (excluding those of the operator) and three
school-age children (excluding those of the operator) is permitted as a
home occupation though an outdoor play area for the children is
required. Similarly, in the RR districts, any outdoor activities are
expressly allowed in conjunction with a home occupation subject to some
locational criteria so long as the use is conducted on a property of at
least 10 acres.
As for telecommuting, technically, that is a zoning violation if done
without a home occupation license. The ordinance specifies that "any
occupation conducted by the inhabitants of the dwelling" requires a home
occupation permit. I have never considered this to be an issue, however,
given that there is no way to determine whether people in a dwelling are
actually telecommuting.
This is similar to the problem I have with any arbitrary cap on the area
of a home used for a home occupation. Enforcement of the cap is
impossible. Zoning enforcement officers cannot go into a home to
determine if the cap is being violated; they lack the required evidence.
And included in the space devoted to the home occupation is all space
devoted to the home occupation; in the case of home occupations with
nonresident employees (which are also expressly permitted) that would
include restrooms and the kitchen (if used by the nonresident employee
for meals or breaks) -- this issue is not as easy as people would like
to make it.
The real issue, I have always thought, was the impact on the
neighborhood. Does the home continue to fit into the neighborhood or, as
a result of the occupations being undertaken, has it become a nuisance
within the neighborhood? Can you detect that from outside the home?
Frank Duke, AICP
City-County Planning Director
-----Original Message-----
From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
On Behalf Of inc-list-request at rtpnet.org
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:04 PM
To: inc-list at rtpnet.org
Subject: INC-list Digest, Vol 25, Issue 8
Send INC-list mailing list submissions to
inc-list at rtpnet.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
inc-list-request at rtpnet.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
inc-list-owner at rtpnet.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of INC-list digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: INC NEWS - 2 things as neighborhoods meet this month
(RW Pickle)
2. Re: INC NEWS - 2 things as neighborhoods meet this month
(pat carstensen)
3. Re: INC NEWS - 2 things as neighborhoods meet this month
(Barry Ragin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:50:19 -0500 (EST)
From: "RW Pickle" <randy at 27beverly.com>
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - 2 things as neighborhoods meet this month
To: "Barry Ragin" <bragin at nc.rr.com>
Cc: inc-list at durhaminc.org
Message-ID:
<49187.71.111.192.77.1168307419.squirrel at webmail.patriot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
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.
=====================================================================
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:03:38 -0500
From: "pat carstensen" <pats1717 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - 2 things as neighborhoods meet this month
To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
Message-ID: <BAY122-F268037F07EB25F96D43693D9B30 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
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/
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:04:10 -0500
From: Barry Ragin <bragin at nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - 2 things as neighborhoods meet this month
To: pat carstensen <pats1717 at hotmail.com>
Cc: inc-list at durhaminc.org
Message-ID: <45A3062A.8090308 at nc.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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
>
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
End of INC-list Digest, Vol 25, Issue 8
***************************************
More information about the INC-list
mailing list