Laserfiche WebLink
FF, I <br />BOOK 1@9 PAGE 14 <br />uses include nursing homes, adult living facilities, total care facilities, and group homes. The <br />proposed amendments codify into the LDRs the policy that prohibits new projects containing special <br />needs residents within the CHHA. In this way, the amendment will implement the comprehensive <br />plan policy. <br />Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment <br />PSAC Recommendation: Voted (6-1) to approve the proposed amendment <br />PZC Recommendation: Voted (7-0) to approve the proposed amendment <br />11. Home Occupations <br />Staff is proposing revisions to the County's home occupation requirements (LDR Section 912.05(6)) <br />to address concerns raised at the February 25, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting <br />appeal of Robert Davis, regarding his home-based lawn care business. The issue of appeal related <br />to non-resident employees parking daily at Mr. Davis's premises under the home occupation. <br />The proposed revisions clarify in "paragraph 5" that non-resident employees are not allowed to work, <br />park their vehicles, or congregate at a home occupation premises under the conduct of the home <br />occupation (see attachment amendment, paragraph 912.05(6)(D)5). Also, staff is proposing to delete <br />use limitation paragraph 912.05(6)(D)7, which pertains to traffic and parking. Staffs viewpoint is <br />that the traffic/parking section (paragraph 7) should be deleted since it raises more questions than <br />it answers, and because traffic and parking issues are addressed in other LDR requirements, <br />including the prohibition of non-resident employee parking now proposed in paragraph 5. <br />A discussion ensued at the February 25th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as to whether <br />or not it is acceptable to allow some minor level of traffic and non-resident employee (or client) <br />parking at a home occupation site. Staffs position is that the County should not allow any such <br />traffic or parking under the conduct of a home occupation. Staff recognizes that "normal" traffic <br />volume and parking at a single-family residence varies with the size of a family and the number of <br />licensed -driver residents. Staff feels that the County should not compound that normal range of <br />traffic/parking volume by allowing additional traffic generated by a home occupation via clients <br />and/or non-resident employees. Any allowance of clients or non-resident employees coming to a <br />residence would be difficult to enforce and could essentially open the door to office -like or <br />commercial -like uses in all neighborhoods countywide. Such an allowance, if exploited, would <br />conflict with the intent of the zoning ordinance to separate incompatible uses. <br />The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend that a limited number of non-resident <br />employees (up to two) be allowed to park and meet at a home occupation premises, provided the <br />actual conduct of the occupation occurred off -premises. In reviewing that recommendation, the <br />Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) voted to expand the allowance such that up to <br />two vehicles of non-resident employees or clients could be parked at a residence associated with the <br />conduct of a home occupation. The PSAC's recommendation would thus allow business clients, as <br />well as non-resident employees, to visit a home occupation residence on a daily basis. <br />Staff's position is that the current regulation, as it has been applied, has adequately balanced home <br />occupation allowances with neighborhood public interest. Over the past four years, approximately <br />1,200 home occupation permits have been i§sued, and staff has processed approximately 50 code <br />enforcement actions based on neighborhood complaints. Staff thinks that the LDR revisions should <br />only clarify the current allowance and not expand the allowance. This approach would be consistent <br />with the regulations of the City of Sebastian, which prohibits non-resident employees and clients <br />from coming to a home occupation premises. The City of Vero beach prohibits visits from non- <br />resident employees but does allow customer visits from 9:00am to 9:00pm. <br />April 19,1999 <br />12 <br />0 is <br />