Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Occupation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves home-occupation variance for fitness classes on 19-acre Clay County property
Summary
The board granted a person-specific home-occupation variance allowing a business to operate from a family-owned 19-acre agricultural property where the applicant does not currently reside. Staff and neighbors reported no written opposition.
Get email alerts on the Home Occupation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Clay County Board of Zoning Adjustment approved a nonuse variance allowing a resident-tied home occupation to be granted to an identified person who does not currently reside in the principal dwelling on a roughly 19-acre agricultural property.
Applicant Erica Todd told the board the property has been her family’s home for four generations and that she lives about three miles away; she asked to run a small, low-impact business there to limit overhead while starting the enterprise. Staff advised the applicant to pursue a person-specific home-occupation variance rather than a broader use variance so the permit would tie to Todd rather than the land.
Staff explained the requested relief relates to the home-occupation rules in section 1516.3.c of the land development code: the applicant asked for exceptions to the resident-operator requirement (she does not currently live in the house), expanded hours (earlier start times than the code’s usual 8 a.m.) and a higher client/customer cap than the standard small-scale limit. Because the property is rural and neighbors reported no opposition, staff said public notice had reached a large radius (4,000 feet) and staff received follow-up questions but no written opposition letters.
Commissioners discussed the neighborhood setting and whether neighbors would be disturbed by earlier hours and increased client traffic. Commissioner John Carpenter said the proposal felt consistent with the rural location and the lack of neighbor objections. The board moved and seconded a motion to approve the variance for case 25-123; the motion carried on roll call and staff recorded the approval.
Approval is person-specific and, per staff guidance, would lapse if the named operator were no longer running the business. Any future changes that would make the operation a different class of use would require additional review.

