Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Occupations Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rowlett Council directs review of home-occupation rules; city attorney to draft updated exclusions
Summary
Deputy Mayor Artem Schindler asked staff to update the city’s home-occupation ordinance, adopted in 2006, to clarify definitions, exemptions for remote workers and guidance on accessory buildings, parking, signage and hazardous materials. Council recommended routing changes through Recode/Planning and zoning as appropriate.
Deputy Mayor Artem Schindler presented a request to revise Rowlett’s home-occupation ordinance, originally adopted in 2006, citing ambiguity about who must register, what must obtain a certificate of occupancy and how accessory structures and employees are treated.
Schindler said remote work and home-based businesses have proliferated since the ordinance was written and that the code currently requires registration for “home occupations” without precise definitions. “Working at home is very, very common place,” he said, arguing the ordinance should exclude low-impact telecommuters and clarify thresholds for when a home business must register or seek a certificate of occupancy.
Why it matters: the ordinance as written (adopted in 2006) includes requirements—registration, possible certificate of occupancy, limits on accessory buildings (reference to 20% of floor area or “500 square feet” in the code text), one nonresident employee, limits on commercial vehicles and outdoor storage—that staff and council said are ambiguous or outdated. Council members asked the city attorney to draft clearer language that would: enumerate businesses that are prohibited in residential areas, list low-impact uses that should be excluded, clarify accessory-building limits and parking rules, and provide an enforceable ‘‘adverse impact’’ standard for borderline cases (for example, frequent box-truck deliveries or late-night equipment testing).
Process and next steps Council discussion did not produce a formal vote. Members suggested the city attorney draft revisions and indicated the item could be advanced either through a stand-alone ordinance or as part of the Recode Rowlett code update. Staff noted zoning amendments will require Planning & Zoning review and public hearing. Council members encouraged staff to coordinate the rewrite with the Recode process, and to return with proposed exclusions and a regulatory framework that balances neighborhood compatibility and modern remote-work patterns.
Examples raised in discussion Councilmembers cited examples that the revised code should address: remote employees who work for outside employers (not to be treated as home-based businesses); low-volume online retailers who receive occasional packages; and small contractor-type businesses whose operations (equipment testing, frequent deliveries, loud early-morning work) can disrupt neighborhoods. Council emphasized drafting both specific prohibitions and a clear, general standard for “adverse impact” that staff can apply consistently and that would be appealable under established administrative processes.
Ending Council asked the city attorney and Community Development to prepare draft language for council review and indicated a preference to include the issue in the broader Recode Rowlett process if that provides better alignment; a Planning & Zoning public hearing will be required for any zoning code changes.
