Bicknell planning commission continues drafting home-occupation ordinance, defers final action

Bicknell Planning and Zoning Commission members spent the April 15 meeting continuing work on a draft home-occupation ordinance intended to distinguish simple home businesses from conditional-use commercial operations and to create a licensing and enforcement framework.

Commissioners said the ordinance aims to clarify when an activity should be treated as a routine home occupation that can be permitted by the town and when it becomes a commercial use that requires rezoning or a conditional-use-type review. They debated specific limits and conditions — including categories for “no-impact” versus “impact” home occupations, employee caps, parking and hours of operation — and decided to hold the draft for further edits and to return to the topic next month rather than forward a completed ordinance to the council immediately.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the town currently fields many informal businesses run from residences and that clearer rules would reduce repetitive conditional-use requests, allow the town to issue business licenses, and give staff clearer enforcement options if a permitted home occupation later causes neighborhood disruption.

Major points discussed - Scope and intent: Commissioners agreed the ordinance should apply to residents operating businesses out of their primary dwelling and accessory structures on the same lot. They discussed whether the rule should explicitly name current zones (residential, residential-agricultural, commercial-residential) or use a broader “residential” phrasing to capture dwellings in multiple zones. - Two-category permit approach: Several commissioners favored language modeled on sample ordinances from other Utah towns that separate “no-impact” home occupations (no customers or traffic to the residence) from “impact” home occupations (activities that attract customers or materially change the residential character); the latter would trigger additional review or a public hearing. - Employee limits and clientele: Commissioners discussed limits on nonresident employees who report to the residence. Options floated included allowing the owner plus one nonresident employee, a one-chair limit for personal-service uses (e.g., hair or beauty), and the Washington County approach (owner + one employee on site by default; up to three employees if the business does not bring clientele to the premises). They did not adopt a final numeric limit. - Accessory buildings and lot use: The draft language would allow businesses to use accessory buildings (garages, shops) on the same lot as the residence provided the accessory structure use is “normally associated with residential use” and does not convert the property’s appearance into a commercial site. Commissioners emphasized that remodels that create salon-style interiors or other commercialized setups should trigger additional review and permits (building permits, etc.). - Parking and traffic: Commissioners debated parking controls and whether to require paved/hard-surface on-site parking for business-related vehicles. They agreed that business-related vehicles must not block the street or town right-of-way and that off-street parking should be required, but they did not finalize surfacing or vehicle-count requirements. A proposed restriction to prohibit business-related traffic between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. was discussed as a way to limit late-night client activity. - Specific uses and examples: Commissioners reviewed a list of example home occupations (crafts, tutoring, music lessons, consulting, daycares, dance lessons) and discussed whether to list numeric caps (for example, a previously suggested limit of eight students for daycares). They agreed examples should be included but without creating a prescriptive entitlement; language noting that home-occupation privileges can be revoked if neighborhood disruption occurs will be placed prominently in the draft. - Licensing and renewal: The draft ties home-occupation approval to an annual business license. Commissioners discussed renewal timing and a provision that a license lapses if it is not renewed within a stated period after expiration. No final fee schedule was approved at the meeting.

Process and next steps Commissioners asked staff to consolidate edits (including examples from Nephi and Washington County that were circulated during the meeting), to refine definitions, and to return with a revised draft next month. The commission agreed to keep the ordinance in draft form for another month before representing a final proposal to the town council. One commissioner volunteered to draft a short informational blurb about conditional uses and the ordinance for the town newsletter and to send it to the town clerk for the next issue.

Votes at the meeting At the start of the meeting the commission voted to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. Katie McDonald moved to approve the minutes; Diane Frazier seconded. The motion passed (all in favor). The meeting ended after a motion to adjourn was made and seconded; the adjournment motion carried.

What was not decided The commission did not adopt final numeric limits for employees or vehicles, did not set final surfacing requirements for parking, and did not set license fees. Several items were left deliberately open for additional drafting and to allow staff to check building-code and state-code implications (for example, for daycares and chemical-storage questions).

Ending Commissioners scheduled further work on the ordinance and asked staff to return a revised draft for review at the next regular meeting before forwarding a final package to the town council.