Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Z.B. January 15, 1996 -- Page 3 /22- The village's zoning ordinance allowed certain home occupations in the residential district. To qualify, the business had to be one customarily carried on in a home (or accessory building) by a family member who resided there. The business also had to be clearly incidental and secondary to the home's residential use. The ordinance restricted the size and nature of home busi- nesses, allowed them to have only one employee who was not a family mem- ber, and required all business to be carried on wholly within the home or accessory structure. The ordinance listed as allowed home art studios, barber or beauty shops, professional' offices, and bed and break_fasts. It prohibited commercial stables, kennels, and restaurants. Pavlot assured the board his funeral business would comply with all con- ditions placed on home occupations. The board found the business qualified as a customary home occupation, and issued Pavlot a permit. Hughes and other neighbors sued the board. They asked the court to annul the board's decision because it was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion. They said the ordinance .authorized operation of funeral homes in business dis- tricts, so it should be inferred that such businesses were not allowed in the residential district. The neighbors argued that a funeral home could not be incidental and secondary to the use of the property as a residential dwelling. According to them, a funeral business -- with mourners, bearers, and a hearse to transport the deceased - could not be operated wholly within the building. The board argued it properly interpreted the ordinance. It said nothing in the ordinance prohibited funeral businesses from qualifying as home occupa- tions. According to the board, the village legislature could have specifically prohibited funeral homes from residential districts if that was its intent. The board also argued that activities extending outside the funeral home were a matter for code enforcement, not interpretation of the zoning ordinance. DECISION: Reversed and annulled. The board's interpretation of the ordinance was arbitrary and did not com- ply with the ordinance's intent. The common thread defining all home occupations was that the occupa- tion was clearly incidental to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes. Pavlot's operation of a funeral home could not be secondary to the use of the building as a residence because there would be -- by necessity -- external indications of the business's operation. Jurisdiction -- Landowners Claim Municipalities Illegally Delegated Authority Alameda County Land Use Association v. City of Hayward, 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 752 (California) 2995 The Ridgelands Area in California was about 13,000 acres of mostly open pasture. Parts of it were in the cities of Pleasanton and Hayward; the majority lay in an unincorporated part of Alameda County. The city of Hayward, the city of Pleasanton, and Alameda County (the parties) signed an agreement regarding the Ridgelands. It stated the parties