Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/1998

Home

Z.B. September 25, 1998 -- Page 3 7'/ discretion to select a minimum ratio that it thought would achieve its goals. Nor did the federal manufactured housing statute preempt the ordinance. Because the purpose of the federal standards was to protect consumers, the only type of construction and safety standards the federal standards preempted were those protecting consumers from various hazards associated with manu- factured housing. The federal statute didn't preempt zoning requirements relating to aesthetics. The county designed the 4:12 requirement merely to impose an aesthetic condition for the placement of manufactured homes in certain areas within the county. see also: Scurlock v. City of Lynn Haven, 858 F. 2d 1521 (1988). see also: Grant v. County of Seminole, 817 F. 2d 731 (1987). Home Business m Is noncommercial kennel a home occupation? Citation: Matthews v. City of Jennings, Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern Dist., Div. Four, No. 73010 (1998) Matthews owned a residential lot in the city of Jennings, Mo. Her property was surrounded by commercial property. Matthews owned eight dogs, all of which were vaccinated. Her property had a large tennis court enclosed by a 9-foot-high fence, which she used as a dog pen. The pen was attached to her house, so the dogs never ran loose. The city received one complaint about the dogs, but the city never substantiated it and never contacted Matthews about it. In 1995, the city told Matthews to get rid of all but three of her dogs because the city code allowed no more than three dogs without a kennel license. When Matthews asked to keep her dogs, a city councilman told her to apply for a kennel license. Matthews applied for a noncommercial kennel license. She said ail she wanted was to keep her current dogs as family members, and said she didn't intend to breed, sell, or in any way "conduct a business involving [her] pets or any other animals." Matthews claimed her proposed kennel fell within the definition of permit- ted "home occupations" because a kennel could be classified as a domestic activity and because the definition Of "home occupation" wasn't limited solely to business activities. The city code defined "home occupation" as a domestic activity carried on by no more than two members of the family residing on the premises. The definition excluded beauty shops, barber shops, music schools, nursing homes, and other establishments offering services to the general public, and stated there could be no signs and no selling of "trade or commodity" on the premises. The city denied Matthews' request, stating a kennel wasn't a permitted use in a residential zone. Matthews put all but three of her dogs in a commercial kennel, which cost about $800 per month. She then appealed the denial of her kennel license to court.