Home > Links > Contact Us
Local Business
Questions and Answers About Home Occupations
The following questions were posed to and answered by Vanessa Gembarski, WWT Zoning Administrator.
Q: Section 7.7-2 states, "Home occupations may require a permit . . . ." Under what circumstances would a home occupation require a permit?
A: It is very hard to give examples for this because so many things can be home occupations; many of them are things we would not normally think of. There are certain occupations that would need to be acknowledged and it would be on a case by case basis. One example was someone wanting to sell church wine out of their house. Because church wine is for a specific use it was as seen as needing a permit and affidavit.
Q: Section 7.7-2 A says, "No more than one non-resident assistant or employee shall be used at any one time." What is the rationale for limiting assistants or employees to one? What about a group daycare where 2 non-resident assistants or employees might be needed at any one time?
A: This is mostly likely to reduce traffic. Someone that has 5 employees would generate much more traffic than a normal residence would incur 5 days per week. Home occupations would be allowed in all districts except commercial and industrial. Because they would be allowed in all residential districts, it is the intent to keep traffic and noise at a minimum, a home occupation should not increase those issues more than normal for a single family residence. Group day care is allowed by special use permit in the agriculture, rural forest, village mixed/residential, but not rural and lake residential. Because they are allowed by special use permit, there would be further review to assure compliance with the ordinance. A group day care is not considered a home occupation and has specific state guidelines that must be followed, so therefore we treat them differently. The current ordinance does not allow someone who operates a home occupation to have employees. Section 3.18 definition of a home occupation says “and occupation or activity for gain or support conducted only by member of a family residing on the premises….” The proposed ordinance would allow someone to have an employee to it gives more options to people with home occupations.
Q: Section 7.7-2 A says, "A home occupation may be conducted within a primary dwelling unit only." What is the rationale for this provision in the proposed ordinance? Does this mean an accessory building could not be used, such as a detached garage, pole barn or shed? If an accessory building cannot be used, what is the rationale for that, as long as the home occupation complies in all other respects?
A: Yes, home occupations may only be conducted in the primary dwelling; that is the same requirement as the current ordinance. Section 7.10 C. of the current ordinance states “home occupations carried on in a family dwelling…” Currently we do not allow home occ. to be conducted in accessory structures. I have heard that in the past there have been complaints about people working late in the barns, causing noise, and disturbing neighbors. We feel that keeping home occupations in the home, it will reduce nuisances for their neighbors. The proposed ordinance states the purpose of home occupation regulations in section 7.7-1 A-C. These regulations are in place to allow home occupations but to also protect neighboring residents. If someone’s neighbor has a home occupation in their detached garage and causes noise once in awhile, that may not be a problem for them…but what if there were 5 other home occupations surrounding them. That could create a much greater nuisance and the township needs to look out for that.
Q: Section 7.7-2 A says, "A signed affidavit stating the conditions in this section 7.7-2 may be required." What does this mean? Under what circumstances would a signed affidavit be required?
A: I have not had to deal with this situation, but I know it has been done. I will answer this question when I get more information for you. However, I do believe this would be similar to what the planning commission does with special use permits. Many times we give approval with conditions, those conditions are usually things that a listed in the ordinance. The applicant then has to sign the permit, this way the applicant is very clear on what the rules are and they cannot claim they didn’t know what was in the ordinance. I will try to get more information on examples of this for you.
A: (continued) An affidavit is used with certain home occupations and again would be at the discretion of the ZA. This would state conditions under which the business would operate. The resident selling church wine was required to sign an affidavit and the terms were agreed upon by the resident and the ZA.
Q: Section 7.7-2 B says, "A home occupation shall be incidental and secondary to the use of a dwelling unit for residential purposes." Define what "incidental and secondary" means. What is the intent of this sentence in the proposed zoning ordinance?
A: Incidental and secondary mean that use is not the primary use. In the case of a single family residence, the primary use is to reside and live there…working out of your home would be secondary. The ordinance states “incidental and secondary to the use of a dwelling unit for residential purposes”…it is not saying a dwelling unit for commercial purposes. Someone would not build a home specifically to work out of it; it would first serve as a place to live. As the proposed ordinance states in 7.7-2 B. “it shall be conducted in a manner which does not give the outward appearance of a business…and does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood”. When driving by or living next a home occ., you should not know there is a home occ. there, except for maybe a 3 sq ft sign designating the business. A home occ. is not the primary use of a family dwelling; therefore it is the intent to allow residents to conduct business in their homes while not disturbing surrounding residents and the character of the area, or turning residential neighborhoods into commercial centers.
Q: Section 7.7-2 G says, "The use of substances in a manner which may endanger public health or safety or which pollute the air or water shall be prohibited." Please give examples of the "substances" which, if used, would be a violation of this proposed section of the ordinance.
A: One example would be car fluids (i.e. oil, antifreeze, etc) anything that is not used properly. Not to say you can’t change your car oil in your yard or garage, but we don’t want residents dumping used fluids on the ground where they can contaminate ground water. I’m not sure what other types of substances someone may use, I’m sure there are many kinds. The township just wants to make sure that if someone is using a substance, that it is used, stored, and disposed of properly.
Q: Please give examples of home occupations which are allowed under the existing zoning ordinance but which will not be allowed under the proposed zoning ordinance.
A: We do not list specific home occupations that are allowed under either ordinance. There are many types of home occupations that could be conducted, and as long as they follow the regulations, they would be allowed. As far as examples go, I don’t think there are any current legal and permitted home occupations that would be prohibited in the proposed ordinance. I do not know of any home occupations that could exist under the current zoning that would not be allowed under the proposed zoning. We simply require all new home occupations to comply with the new rules. I’m double checking this with our planner because I have some questions about nonconformities. Hopefully I can answer you question more thoroughly after I speak with him.
A: (continued) Currently any legal home occupation would be allowed to operate under the new ordinance.
Contact us at, contact@whitewaterwatch.com
Send mail to: Whitewater Watch, PO box 161, Williamsburg MI 49690