INC NEWS - INC-list Digest, Vol 25, Issue 8
bragin at nc.rr.com
bragin at nc.rr.com
Tue Jan 9 16:32:07 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."
But if the occupant of the house is running an unlicensed business
repairing other people's automobiles, and storing as many as 16 tires on
the porch or in the driveway as part of that business operation, what is
the appropriate enforcement mechanism?
"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?"
If that is the criteria, again the question is, what is the appropriate
enforcement mechanism for a person running a business that does become a
nuisance, with or without the appropriate permits?
This is not a rhetorical question, Mr. Duke. Neighbors on my block put
up with a tenant running as many as three unlicensed businesses (auto
repair, dog breeding, and fighting bird selling), two of which were of
questionable legality (the dog breeding was almost certainly for the
purpose of selling fighting dogs), for the better part of a year,
without once discovering the magic combination by which any city or
county agency would take action.
The landlord only moved to ask the tenants to remove the dogs from the
property after being threatened with a lawsuit when a neighbor was
attacked by the dogs one evening. The tenants then chose to vacate the
property rather than get rid of the dogs.
I am not prepared, nor are my neighbors, over 30 of whom attended an
inconclusive meeting with Constance Stancil and a member your
enforcement staff two months ago, to put up with a similar situation in
the future, and appreciate your guidance as to the proper mechanism to
invoke if the scenario described above recurs.
Barry Ragin
1706 Shawnee St.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duke, Frank" <Frank.Duke at durhamnc.gov>
Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2007 4:14 pm
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - INC-list Digest, Vol 25, Issue 8
To: inc-list at rtpnet.org
> Having tires stored outside your home, so long as the tires are not
> usedin 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
> withhome 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
> somelocational 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
> homeoccupation 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
> areaof 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
> tirebusiness. 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
> beenreported I was running a business over here and it looked like
> it was
> towing (as they suggested). After I answered their questions, they
> leftand 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
> theyhad to drive by and see a tow truck parked in my driveway. It
> continuedto
> 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
> anotherdeal.
>
> 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
> endof
> > 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
> accountantor
> >>> 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
> detrimentalto
> 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
> adjoiningproperties 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
> shallnot
> 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
> Planningand
> >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
> becausethey
> >had to drive by and see a tow truck parked in my driveway. It
> continuedto
> >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
> partof
> > >> 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
> thani 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
> are2
> > >>>> 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
> withthe
> > >>>>>> 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.
> Sendany
> > >>>>>> 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
> senderof
> > >> 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
> wholesaleon
> > 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
> propertiesless
> > 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
> useas 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
> thehome
> > 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
> folksjust
> >> 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
> partof
> >>>> 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
> thani 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
> are2
> >>>>>> 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
> withthe
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> Sendany
> >>>>>>>> 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
> senderof
> >>>> 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
> ***************************************
> _______________________________________________
> 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