Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Business Cup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves conditional use permit for large‑scale home business at 235 Cooper Lane West with 90‑day compliance window and operating limits
Summary
The Planning, Zoning and Adjustment Board approved a conditional use permit allowing a large‑scale home business (firewood operation) at 235 Cooper Lane West for James Brost and Angela Coley, subject to revised conditions to be finalized by the city attorney, a 90‑day compliance window and limits on equipment hours and customer access.
The Planning, Zoning and Adjustment Board on May 1 approved a conditional use permit (CUP) for a large‑scale home business at 235 Cooper Lane West operated by James Brost and Angela Coley, with conditions to be finalized by the city attorney, a 90‑day period to comply and specific limits on equipment and customer hours.
Legal counsel Alexa advised the board to consider enforceability when setting conditions. The permit draft contained 11 conditions drafted by staff and legal, many intended to confine business operations and limit impacts on neighboring residences: indoor storage and processing for materials that are part of the business (excluding personal‑use vehicles), limits on vehicles and employees, restricted hours of heavy equipment operation, prohibition on burning business‑related materials, noise and nuisance limitations, insulation or other sound‑mitigation measures for buildings used for processing, and a ban on new signage unless permitted.
Applicants James Brost and Angela Coley told the board they had reviewed the conditions and said they were acceptable but that compliance would take time. Brost and Coley said they were working to clean up outdoor storage and that they plan to reduce noise by using an electric chainsaw for some work and by adding silencing to their splitter. Brost reported his own decibel measurements near equipment: one reading of about 90 dB near the splitter at higher speed and an 83 dB reading from a neighbor’s back fence 285 feet away.
Board members and counsel discussed enforceability and specifics. Alexa recommended clarifying the burning prohibition so it applies to materials produced by or related to the business while allowing personal fires compliant with city code. The board added a 90‑day deadline for the owner to bring operations into compliance and agreed the business could continue operating during that 90‑day period subject to restricted equipment hours. The board proposed limiting equipment operation to 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Saturday and establishing customer hours consistent with typical business hours (board settled on 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.).
Dan moved and Catherine seconded the motion to approve the CUP subject to staff findings, the draft conditions to be revised and approved by the city attorney, a 90‑day compliance period and the operating‑hours limits described above. The board conducted a roll call vote for this item: Carla, Dan, Catherine, Ian and Joe voted yes; the chair voted no; Sarah recused herself from the item. The motion carried.
Legal counsel and staff emphasized enforcement would be complaint driven and that repeat violations could trigger revocation of the CUP under existing code provisions. The board asked staff to ensure the final language clarifies enforcement, any exceptions for personal‑use burning and how noise complaints would be handled.
