Middletown board affirms violation for landscaping business operating from residential property
Loading...
Summary
The board affirmed the zoning administrator's notice of violation for a landscaping business operating at 2666 Cincinnati Dayton Road in an R‑4 residential district, denying the property owner's appeal after testimony from neighbors and the applicant.
The Middletown Board of Zoning Appeals on Aug. 6 affirmed a zoning violation finding that a landscaping business is operating from 2666 Cincinnati Dayton Road, a property zoned R‑4 Attached Residential. The board denied the property owner’s appeal after staff testimony, neighbor statements and questioning of the applicant.
Planning staff said the appeal followed a complaint and a code inspection alleging outdoor storage and contractor activity at the address, which is prohibited for home occupations under the Middletown Development Code. Staff cited the code provision that explicitly prohibits construction, landscaping or similar contractor facilities and outdoor storage at residential properties operating as home occupations.
During the hearing the property owner, who identified himself as Jeffrey Cristobal while staff called the applicant Efrain Cristobal in the application, testified that he performs off‑site work, stores limited equipment in an existing rear storage shed and does not sell or transact business on the property. He acknowledged owning vehicles and said he sometimes uses additional help for larger jobs. He also said some vehicles were titled to other addresses and that he was still updating paperwork.
Several neighbors testified that they observed multiple trucks, trailers and equipment at the residence and reported equipment movements at early or late hours, outdoor storage near the barn and concerns about trash and rodents. One neighbor said the property had been paved in the backyard and that equipment and storage had changed the character of surrounding yards.
Staff presented dated, stamped photographs from the inspection and a notarized witness statement from the complainant. Planning and appeals criteria cited by staff include Middletown Development Code section 12.06.01(e)(8)(d), which states that construction and landscaping contractor facilities and outdoor storage are prohibited as home occupations, and applicable off‑street parking provisions.
Board members debated the policy implications but emphasized the code’s purpose to separate business uses from single‑family residential districts. One board member commended the owner’s work on the house but said that operating a business to generate income — even without an on‑site sales counter or storefront — meets the ordinary definition of a business and therefore is inconsistent with the code in that zoning district.
A motion to affirm the zoning administrator’s violation determination passed on a roll call vote with the members present voting to deny the appeal. The notice of violation remains in place; the record shows the zoning administrator as the issuing authority and identifies the specific code sections violated. The board did not record additional sanctions or a schedule for compliance in the hearing transcript; enforcement steps follow the city’s code procedures and any appeal rights noted in the notice of violation.
