Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Home Occupation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission recommends changes to home-occupation rules, forwards ordinance to county commission

5356474 · July 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Kane County Planning and Zoning Commission on July 9 recommended approval of Ordinance O-2025-22, a revision of the county’s home-occupation rules that clarifies permitted activities and adds a new article for residential zones.

The Kane County Planning and Zoning Commission on July 9 recommended approval of Ordinance O-2025-22, which revises definitions and conditions for home occupations in the county’s land-use code and adds a new article for residential zones.

Shannon, planning staff, told commissioners that a recent home-occupation submittal prompted an attorney review and that the existing code language produced ambiguity. “I pulled the attorney into my office, and I'm like, I don't know about this,” Shannon said. She described the draft ordinance as incorporating examples and clearer standards drawn from other counties and said the changes would help the county regulate a broader set of modern home-based businesses.

The draft ordinance would, among other things, clarify that most home occupations must be conducted within a dwelling unit, limit the portion of dwelling area used for business activities to 25% (with the daycare exception explicitly retained), and list prohibited uses such as vehicle repair, commercial stables and animal boarding when those uses would generate commercial impacts incompatible with a residential character. The draft also proposes standards on outdoor activities, lot coverage and density for multi-residential developments and adds an article describing permitted and conditional home-based uses.

Commissioners asked several clarifying questions during discussion. Commissioner Cox suggested having the county attorney complete a final review before forwarding the ordinance to the county commission; Cox said he worried about ambiguous language that might allow commercial-scale operations in residential areas. “Would we be wise to have the attorney look over it and do it next week just to make sure we're covered?” Cox asked. Commissioner Glaser and others noted a balance between protecting residential character and allowing residents to operate legitimate home businesses in a county with limited local jobs.

Commissioner Crutchfield said the revised text aims to prevent a residential property from becoming indistinguishable from commercial uses and supports clearer definitions that allow small businesses without changing neighborhood character. “I was concerned that there was too much ambiguity in the words does not change the character thereof,” Crutchfield said, adding that beefing up the ordinance could help distinguish allowed home occupations from retail or commercial operations.

After discussion, the commission moved and seconded a recommendation to approve the ordinance as revised and forward it to the county commission. The motion passed by voice vote. Commissioners asked staff to work with the county attorney on any final codifier or drafting edits prior to submission.