Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Businesses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gunnison planning commission approves two home-occupation licenses for auto detailing and pet grooming
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved two home-occupation applications April 23: a mobile auto-detailing business at 251 East 300 South and a pet grooming operation in a 16x10 shed at 248 East Dreamer South, both with conditions requiring compliance with city home-occupation standards and appropriate inspections or waste disposal.
The Gunnison Planning and Zoning Commission voted April 23 to approve two home-occupation applications, imposing conditions to address safety and neighborhood impacts.
The commission approved a mobile auto-detailing business, TCN Auto Detail, proposed for 251 East 300 South. A commissioner moved to approve the application with the conditions that the owner comply fully with the city’s home-occupation standards and that waste products generated by the business be disposed of in accordance with city waste-management regulations. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
Separately, the commission approved a home-based pet-grooming business at 248 East Dreamer South. Staff reported the grooming would take place in a 16-by-10-foot shed east of the house, that the applicant would be the sole employee, and that the business expects to groom an average of about five dogs per day. Commissioners sought confirmation on whether the shed would be inspected; staff noted county practice is generally not to inspect structures under 200 square feet, so the commission added a condition requiring the shed to be inspected by the county building official, and also required that no boarding of animals occur and that the owner comply with city home-occupation standards. That motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
Both approvals include standard compliance conditions and remain subject to any permits or inspections required by city or county regulations. The commission’s actions were procedural approvals of the home-occupation permits; no changes to zoning were made for either property.
