INC NEWS - 2 things as neighborhoods meet this month

[Colin Crossman]

Mr. Duke makes an excellent point with regard to the "arbitrary cap" 
proposed by some members of this organization. When considering the 
impact of a home-based business on the community, it is not the 
square-footage of one's house that causes a problem, but rather the 
visible indicia of commercial activity.  For instance, if I were to use 
my house to telecommute, one could make the argument that 100% of the 
square footage of my house is used in my home business - as I could 
potentially do work everywhere in the house.  Can I prove that I never 
take work out of the office to the TV couch, the kitchen, or my back porch?

Similarly, though it wouldn't be a violation of the "home-based 
business" rules, there are several hobbies that I can think of that 
would be significantly more annoying than someone running an eBay store 
out of their house: hobbies such as having a garage band for instance.  
Or, to address one example mentioned earlier, what if I breed pit-bulls 
as a hobby but not a business?  Say I give them away?  "Home-based 
business" rules wouldn't cover that.  Restrictions on indicia certainly 
can cover that, and are able to do so in a non-intrusively to the 
community as a whole.

After hearing the arguments on this issue through this list, I can now 
say with certainty that I do not support a modification to the Zoning 
Code, unless that modification is to shore up restrictions on the 
outward appearances of commerce in a residential district.  I am 
convinced that an arbitrary cap, however formulated, would be an 
invitation to capricious enforcement.

-Colin Crossman
Walltown


Duke, Frank wrote:

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.


Frank Duke, AICP

City-County Planning Director