Several aldermen hailed the amendment prohibiting certain in-home businesses adopted last night at the city council meeting, a great addition to the city’s regulations.
One change, however, should have people raising eyebrows over how it will be implemented in practice.
As city attorney Kenneth Black put it in a synopsis of the amendment, the Zoning Board of Appeals will have “some” discretion in making approval decisions for future in-home occupation permit seekers. That is, the final permit-granting decision will be left up to their discretion, as long as the applicant can prove to them the proposed business “will not endanger public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare.”
This new requirement is presumably meant to avoid a repeat of what happened last August when Terry and Thomas Coppenbarger were granted a permit to operate a tattoo and body piercing business out of their home (this is now specifically forbidden in the amended regulation) because they met the then-12 requirements for an in-home occupation.
Neighbors were livid the ZBA let this slip through, arguing their neighborhood would inevitably be overrun by bikers and gangsters. Fast forward six months, and many neighbors admit they have not experienced or witnessed the swift degeneration they predicted.
Although the Coppenbargers will be able to continue their business, since the approval cannot be revoked, if seeking the permit today, there is a good chance the ZBA would exercise its discretion and refuse approval even without a specific prohibition against tattoo and body-piercing businesses.
Granting the ZBA discretion based on morals, comfort and general welfare, three very vague and intangible ideas, means they will become the morality police, imposing their own interpretation of suitable on in-home occupation permit seekers.
In light of a few old-fashioned people’s shocked sensibilities last August, this new regulation may seem like a good idea. However, it may prove itself a future obstacle to innovative, entrepreneurial ideas.
