CITY OF
PICKERINGTON
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY
6, 2006
WORK SESSION
REVIEW OF HOME
OCCUPATIONS DRAFT ORDINANCE
6:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Smith called the Safety Committee Work Session to order at 6:30 P.M., with Mr. Smith and Mr. Sabatino present. Mr. Wisniewski arrived at 6:45 P.M. Others present were Judy Gilleland, Jeff Fix, Lynda Yartin, Ed Drobina, Joe Henderson, and others.
2. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and discussion regarding draft ordinance amending Section 1276.17 of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances relating to home occupations. Mr. Smith stated all Committee members had received a draft copy of the ordinance regarding home occupations. He stated the purpose of this work session is to review this draft ordinance, and he understood the main concern on this ordinance dealt with home offices. Mr. Smith stated the intent of the ordinance is to protect the residential zoning district’s character or function. Mr. Smith further stated on the draft ordinance, the text printed in red are the proposed changes. Mr. Sabatino clarified this ordinance encompasses a converted bedroom that is used as an office occasionally all the way up to where you are conducting a business in your home. Mr. Sabatino further stated he would like to have the definition of what we consider a “home occupation,” would it only be considered a home occupation if you were selling goods. Ms Gilleland stated this speaks to minimal businesses practices, which does not necessarily mean retail, with public coming in and out, but would refer to office activities, which are more typical home occupations. Mr. Sabatino questioned if, to qualify for this classification, would you need to have the threshold of pedestrian traffic in and out of your residence? Mr. Smith stated he did not feel that was required. Mr. Smith further stated in our current ordinance, when he works from home on his computer, it would technically meet the requirement to have a zoning permit. Mr. Sabatino stated he understood this ordinance has been in place for some time, and he would like to know during 2005 how many permits for home occupations were processed. Ms Gilleland stated she did not know the number, but it would be very few, if any. Mr. Sabatino then stated, as he understood it, up to now this has not been enforced. Mr. Smith stated when the Property Task Force was reviewing this issue, they found it is impossible to enforce because there are so many people that have home offices. Mr. Sabatino stated that was his point exactly, he would estimate that in a subdivision 7 out of 10 homes have an office in their home that they use to serve as a business function some amount of time. Mr. Smith stated he would agree that this is not uncommon although he would not put a number on it. Mr. Smith stated, as a member of the Task Force when this was reviewed, they could not validate a requirement, a reason, a necessity, for the city to have an interest in permitting home offices, that converted bedroom or whatever. He stated there is no interest from the city in monitoring or regulating this activity because it generates no pedestrian traffic, it does not employ people in the home, and it does not change any character about the residence or the neighborhood. Mr. Fix stated as he understood it, the intention is to give the City an ordinance or law to fall back on should we find a case where someone is operating a retail or some other type of business out of their home that affects the neighborhood.
Mr. Smith stated the draft ordinance before the Committee this evening is not drastically different than the current ordinance that we have on the books with the exception that the language has been added to eliminate the requirement for that converted bedroom. Mr. Fix stated this would make it easier for that resident that has that small office, that never causes any traffic, to do their job without a certificate of zoning compliance. Mr. Sabatino questioned in what form additional traffic would be generated, could it be a delivery from UPS? Mr. Sabatino stated “from the public” could be inserted in subparagraph (c).
Mr. Wisniewski stated he would be averse to adding “from the public” as discussed earlier because that is to limiting. Mr. Wisniewski stated a UPS or FedEx truck making deliveries would not generate traffic greater in volume than normal for a residential neighborhood. Mr. Sabatino stated his concern about having everyone with a home office register is that according to what he received from the law director, the city has been operating under this ordinance for some time with no problems that has come to their attention. He stated if that is the case, why does everyone have to register now. Mr. Smith stated, what this does is require a Certificate of Zoning Compliance to ensure that the business they want to operate out of their home is in accordance with the ordinance. Ms Gilleland stated it is a preventive measure for the people that need an outline on what is permissible and what isn’t. Mr. Smith stated it is also easier to enforce should a complaint arise, it gives the enforcement officer better criteria to make a decision. Mr. Sabatino stated that is correct, however, we have had this ordinance for a great amount of time and to his knowledge we haven’t had any big problems with home businesses. Ms Gilleland stated we have had a couple of issues, a car repair shop for example, being operated out of a home. Mr. Smith stated it boils down to if you want to run a home occupation, unless it is just a home office, you need to have a Certificate of Zoning Compliance to do it. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt this was government intervention and he did not see a need for registration, and your private property rights should be minimal. He stated he felt we would be taking property rights away from our citizens. Mr. Smith stated he felt the City would be narrowing the scope of the City’s involvement. Mr. Sabatino stated that was not correct because we would be requiring something that we have passively not required in the past. Mr. Smith stated the current ordinance does require it; we just don’t have the capability of enforcing it. Mr. Sabatino stated if there had been enough of a problem there would have been enforcement action.
2. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Smith closed the work session at 7:07 P.M., February 6, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk