Council weighs home-occupation rules; agrees to add low/high-impact criteria and clarify parking and enforcement

At the May 29 work meeting, Bicknell Town reviewed a draft home-occupation business ordinance that would require applicants to secure both a town home-occupation permit and a business license before operating from a residence.

Council and staff described the draft as aiming to allow “low-impact” home businesses while preserving neighborhood peace and safety. The ordinance lists several specific low‑impact conditions (hours, employee limits, parking and noise controls) and contains an enforcement clause that would allow the town to revoke a permit if a home business causes a disruption to a residential neighborhood.

Discussion among council members focused on three operational items: how to define “low impact” versus “high impact,” how to handle vehicles and on‑street parking associated with a home business, and what enforcement penalties to impose. A number of members said the phrase “low impact” is used in state code and in other Utah cities and asked staff to add a clear definition and a two‑tier approach (automatic over‑the‑counter permit for low‑impact operations; planning and zoning review for higher‑impact operations).

Council also flagged a parking provision (section 7 of the draft) that would prohibit vehicles related to the business from parking on the street; members asked staff to remove or reword that provision so the standard targets blocking access to adjacent properties rather than prohibiting all street parking. The draft already contains a check‑list permit process: applicants who meet the low‑impact checklist could receive permit approval at the counter; those who do not would be required to apply to planning and zoning.

Members discussed enforcement, including revocation of permits and the town’s limited ability to prevent county business licensing where county rules apply. Council instructed staff to add low/high impact definitions, to reword the parking clause to focus on blocking access to neighbors, and to remove the disputed section 7. Staff were directed to circulate a revised draft for the council to consider and vote on at the next meeting.

The council did not adopt the ordinance at the work meeting. Councilmembers emphasized the town must tread carefully because state code limits municipalities’ ability to charge fees or overly restrict home‑based businesses unless the local government can show material off‑site impacts.