HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Appeal from Zoning Enforcement Officer Decision concerning definition of Home Occupation at 2402 Melrose AvenueCITY OF AMES, IOWA
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL
OF KAMM FROM THE DECISION OF
THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER, SECTIONS 29.201(86),
AMES MUNICIPAL CODE,
CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF
`HOME OCCUPATION' ON THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2402 MELROSE AVENUE
FACTS
CASE NO. —I 2-08
oL�D
APR 2 6 2012
CITY OF
GEOCODE NO. 05-34-226-060
DECISION & ORDER
The property at this address is a single story, single family detached home with a two car
detached garage. It sits on a comer lot and is in an RL (Low Density Residential) zoning district.
The appellant owns and resides in the home. In 2011, City staff observed several vehicles with
commercial logos were at this residence and people were picking up and dropping these vehicles
off on a daily basis, although no home occupation permit existed for this address. Based on
those observations, the City notified the homeowners that if a business was being conducted
there, a permit would be necessary to operate lawfully. The appellant responded by making
application for a home occupation permit, indicating that the nature of the business was a
residential and commercial cleaning service. Additional information described the business as
having from 6 to 10 employees. Although the actual cleaning is done off site at the locations
needing cleaned, the employees came to this address to get the work vehicles and to pick up
paychecks. When this application was received, the Director of Planning analyzed the
information provided in light of how the Zoning ordinance defines a home occupation, and
determined that the applicant's business was not a home occupation under the definition as it
exceeded the maximum number of non-resident employees. In his capacity as the Zoning
Enforcement Officer, the appellant was advised of the Director's determination by letter, and she
appealed his decision. The appellant explains that while there are more than two employees of
this business who are not residents of the home, since the actual cleaning services are done away
from this residence, the business should be considered a home occupation. The Director argues
that the definition should be given its plain meaning, which does not qualify or describe the
location of the work activities of the employees, but rather looks at their number and residence
status.
DECISION
The Board in this situation is charged with determining whether there was an error in the
determination of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. It considers the facts presented, as well as the
relevant language Or we zoning, ordinance as it applies in His case,. The facts are uncontroverted
that the cleaning business is headquartered at this residence, as all dispatching, appointments,
bookkeeping and storage of work vehicles occurs hem. The employees report here to obtain
work vehicles and retIR-11 flwrn here, and they pick Lq) their paychecks which are prepared and
distributed hero VAG the two residents of this home do those fbi-ictions of the business at this
home, it is riot disputed that the other ernployces do not reside here, report here and are more
than two in number. Under a plain reading of the definition of "home occupation," employment
of more than two non-resident enil)h)yees takes the business outside the definition of a 'tome
oectMation." Vic Board concludes that the Zoning 104bi-cumcm 011cer's determination is
correct.
ORDER
WfIEREFORE, 11' IS ORDFRED that the AppeHant's Appeal of the Determination of the
ZoAng EnArcernerit Officer is Denied, Section 292OQ86) of the Ames ML111iCijX1l Code, d1ld
the determination that the appdkmt is not opuating a lionic OCCLIJ)atiOn is Upheld, for the
property located at 2402 Melrose Avenue.
Any person desiring to appeal His decision to a court of record may W) so within 30 days after
the filing of this decision.
Done this l4t" day of March, 2012.
7
Emily Burton
Scer6tary to Q013oani
Bra wbil h0LJ11
(lair