Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Home Occupations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chelan council hears business community pushback on proposed home-occupation vehicle cap
Summary
At a Feb. 24 public hearing, the council reviewed a proposed zoning amendment that would cap home-occupation vehicle trips at 10 per day; small-business and farming speakers argued the restriction could hamper household-level enterprises and urged clear exemptions. Council asked staff for clarifications and took no action.
The Chelan City Council on Feb. 24 opened a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the city’s home-occupation code that would consolidate rules and add an administrative conditional-use tier limiting vehicle trips to 10 per day (counting in‑and‑out trips). John Ajax, the city’s community development director, told the council the change is intended to streamline permitting and bring predictability to a provision that currently lets the planning director set limits case by case.
Ajax said the city issued 165 home-occupation permits between 2019 and 2025, and only 11 of those involved customers traveling to a residence. He said the 10-trip cap is consistent with vehicle-trip guidance and similar language in other local codes and is intended to protect neighborhood character by limiting retail‑scale traffic in residential areas.
Several members of the public urged the council to rethink the cap. Jared Higgins, a small farmer, said the ceiling—effectively five customer visits per day—could prevent small operators, mobile-service providers and seasonal businesses from growing and urged explicit exemptions for licensed family day care, small home‑based educational programs and direct‑to‑consumer agricultural sales. Jeremiah Polston, who said he owns property in Chelan, argued the measure risks unnecessary regulatory intrusion into private property use. Evelyn Paulston warned the change could undermine family-run livelihoods and urged the council to protect property rights.
Ajax and other staff responded that daycares and childcare services are separately regulated and that agricultural uses and farm stands are covered elsewhere in the code. He said the proposed language could be revised to clarify exemptions and that the council has authority to modify or reject the cap.
Council members largely expressed sympathy for small-business concerns while also acknowledging staff’s goal of reducing arbitrary, case‑by‑case restrictions. Several asked staff to return with clearer exemptions and additional analysis of enforcement and economic effects. No ordinance was adopted at the meeting; the hearing was closed and staff will incorporate council direction and public input into revised draft language for future consideration.
