[ back ]
Limits on home businesses open to debate
(by Joseph Koziol Jr. - September 15, 2010)
Limits on home businesses open to debate
By JOSEPH KOZIOL JR.
Chardon officials are to decide how far the city should go to allow residents to set up businesses in their homes.
Chardon City Council agreed to work with the city's planning commission in a joint meeting at 6:30 p.m. Sept. 29 on a home-occupation issue raised last week. To be decided is how much of a home can be dedicated to the business.
Councilman John Mallen raised the issue last week at a council meeting, where he proposed that council expand the space that can be used from 200 square feet to 25 percent of the home. He said the expanded use would be a "better situation" for creating a more business-friendly city.
John Sheehan, the city's planning and zoning administrator, said the 25 percent provision originally was recommended for the city by planning consultant D.B. Hartt as part of the overhaul of its zoning and planning codes.
Mr. Sheehan said home occupations now are a conditional use in the city that must go before the board of building and zoning appeals. Under proposed regulations, they would become permitted as accessory uses for residential areas.
He said virtually anyone in the city now has the opportunity to begin a home occupation with virtually no limits on the type of business. "Anybody can do it, and they can do whatever they want," Mr. Sheehan said.
Even a wrought-iron foundry could be set up, and the square-footage requirement will only determine how big a foundry it would be, he said. Commercial areas have limitations on the types of businesses that can come in, but under the proposed regulations, there would be no limit on the types in residential areas.
He said certain regulations in the proposed ordinance do prohibit excessive noise, vibration and electronic interference, but those usually only come into play after a business is up and running and the city receives a complaint.
He said there is no "magic number" for the size of an operation, but council should consider only what it and residential neighbors are "willing to tolerate."
With the 25-percent proposal, someone with a 3,000-square foot home could use up to 750 square feet, Mr. Sheehan said.
He said while the city may wish to encourage business by expanding home-occupation rules, it must also balance that goal with the city's attempts to protect the residential character of neighborhoods.
Councilman Robert Cromwell said allowing for larger spaces to be used also may bring about the need for larger parking areas. He said he also had fears about the types of businesses that could be created in residential neighborhoods. He said an asphalt-paving business could mean dump trucks and a paver being parked in a back yard.
"I like the idea in principle, but I don't want to open this up for a paver parked in a neighbor's back yard," he said.
Mr. Mallen said he intended the expanded use only for offices in homes.
Councilwoman Deborah Reiter said while that may be the intention, it does open it up to "everything." She said she thought capping the square footage was a good idea. She said homeowners still could get variances if they wished a larger space.
City Law Director James Gillette said the new regulations may be more applicable to the older housing stock in the city than the newer subdivisions. He said all of the city's newer subdivisions have deed restrictions that would prohibit home occupations.
Speaking as a resident, not law director, Mr. Gillette said, he could see someone in an older home looking at the home-occupation rules as an opportunity to maintain the older homes. He said someone may see an advantage in creating a business to allow for improvements to the home which could be written off as tax deductions. A homeowner's other option to raising money for maintaining that home would be to make it a rental home.
Council President Philip King said the public will be invited to comment when the planning commission and council discuss the issue.
[ back ]
