Bicknell planning commission continues work on home‑occupation ordinance, flags parking, employee and review questions

The Bicknell Planning and Zoning Commission spent most of its April 15 meeting reviewing a draft home‑occupation ordinance, agreeing to refine language on employee limits, accessory‑building use, parking and the process for higher‑impact uses and to continue work next month.

Connie Durfee, chair of the commission, opened the discussion by saying town council had asked clarifying questions and that a recent training emphasized the distinction between a home occupation and a conditional use. Durfee said staff recommended clarifying that simple home occupations should not require conditional‑use review and noted the town could collect fees and educate unlicensed home businesses. "We probably should address that so that it is clear, so that people aren't coming for conditional use when it is a simple home occupation," Durfee said.

Katie McDonald, a commission member, pressed for a functional distinction between low‑impact and higher‑impact home occupations, describing a two‑tier approach used in sample ordinances: "no‑impact" permits that avoid public hearings and "impact" permits that trigger extra review. McDonald argued the distinction would let mobile businesses (for example, a mobile detailing service whose employees do not come to the residence) operate without undue restrictions while directing scrutiny to uses that generate neighborhood traffic or noise.

The commission debated numeric employee caps and how to count employees. Members agreed the rule should focus on employees working at the residence rather than total employees of a business. They discussed specific model language that limited nonresident employees to one on the property at a time for low‑impact uses, while allowing more employees when the use did not bring clientele to the dwelling.

On accessory structures, the commission favored permitting home occupations to use accessory buildings, garages or yards when those structures are on the same lot as the residence and are "normally associated with residential use," rather than allowing separate commercial facilities to operate as home occupations. Commissioners emphasized that the intent is to keep properties appearing residential and to avoid commercial conversions of lots that should be rezoned.

Parking, vehicle storage and hours drew sustained attention. Commissioners discussed prohibiting business‑related traffic between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., with Durfee proposing the phrasing: "The business shall not have traffic for business purposes between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m." They debated a proposed limit on unregistered or business vehicles stored on a lot (a suggested three‑vehicle threshold appeared in the draft) and whether vehicles must be parked on paved or hard surfaces; several members said requiring off‑street parking was a practical middle ground and removed references to a town parking code that currently lacks specific language.

Childcare and lesson‑based activities (daycare, preschool, dance and music lessons) prompted discussion about traffic and state licensing thresholds. Commissioners considered listing those activities as examples while avoiding rigid numeric caps in the ordinance, and noted that daycare providers must meet state licensing where applicable.

Commissioners also resolved to add an explicit, prominent statement that "home occupations are a privilege and can be revoked by the planning commission if disruption of the residential neighborhood occurs," a clause several members said should appear near the ordinance purpose to make enforcement authority and revocability clear.

The body clarified procedure for uses that exceed the "no‑impact" standards: rather than defaulting to a conditional‑use permit, applicants would be required to apply to Planning & Zoning for review and possible conditions. The commission enumerated review factors staff may consider — likelihood of noise, dust, vehicular traffic, hazardous materials and other neighborhood impacts — and said planning review, with tailored conditions, is the appropriate route for borderline or higher‑impact requests.

No final ordinance was adopted. Commissioners agreed to sit on the draft for about a month, review additional model language shared by staff (Nephi, West Haven and other samples) and return with edits. Durfee said she would update the draft's 'whereas' clauses and send additional material to members before the next meeting.

Quotations in this story come from the commission's April 15 proceedings: Durfee said the ordinance needed clarity so "people aren't coming for conditional use when it is a simple home occupation." Diane Frazier read recommended language on enforcement: "home occupations are a privilege and can be revoked by the planning commission if disruption of the residential neighborhood occurs." Commission minutes recorded disputed drafting points on employee counts, parking and on‑lot accessory uses that will be resolved at a later meeting.

The commission did not forward a final draft to town council at this meeting; it will continue the home‑occupation discussion at its next scheduled meeting.