Cheyenne council advances home-occupation changes after debate over body art, employees and parking

The Cheyenne City Council approved on second reading a Unified Development Code amendment updating definitions and permitted uses for home occupations, moving the ordinance forward after extended debate over substitute drafts that differ on whether nonresident employees can work in home businesses and whether tattooing and body piercing should be allowed in homes.

The amendment, approved on second reading with Councilmembers Merrick Layborn and Doctor Rennie voting no, removes certain outdated terms (including "massage parlor," per the substitute language) and clarifies that animal grooming, body art and piercing can be treated as home occupations subject to conditions in the UDC and applicable public-health rules.

The issue drew several council members into a substantive discussion about health and neighborhood impacts. "There's a certain amount of body fluids and hazardous waste... that does give me some pause as far as blood borne pathogens risks in a home," said Doctor Rennie, who urged caution about allowing body-art work in residential settings. Planning staff clarified how two competing substitutes differed: one (dated May 7) would allow a resident to hire an employee for the home business; the other (discussed May 9) would restrict operation to the resident only, similar to rules for salons and barbershops.

"Mayor and members of council, Connor White, Planning and Development Department. So there are 2 subs. The first sub dated the seventh... completely strikes animal grooming and then the body art piercing tattoos completely from that section, which makes basically allows them as home occupations... it could be the resident of the home, plus they can hire an employee as well," White said, explaining the committee version. He continued that the May 9 substitute "has the same language as what is proposed for barbershops, salons, and massage therapy, which basically only allows it to be the resident of the home to operate that home occupation."

Councilmember concerns ranged from public-health safeguards to neighborhood character. "I've always thought that... allowing business into residential areas weakens commercial areas... and it weakens the residential neighborhoods," said Councilmember Rooney, who opposed the amendment. Countering that, Councilmember Aldridge said the policy would support small entrepreneurs: she cited examples of residents operating small salons from their homes and said the allowance gives flexibility to business starters.

Councilmembers agreed to reject a late amendment and proceed with second-reading approval while directing public services committee to continue refining details before third reading. The council also asked staff to reconcile vehicle-parking limits and the resident-vs-employee distinction in committee, and to ensure state and local health-code requirements (including those that apply to barbershops and salons) are reflected in final language.

The council's vote on second reading was recorded as approved with Layborn and Rennie voting no. Staff indicated the substitute language will be further worked in committee and returned for third reading with clarified safeguards and vehicle-parking language.