Dear Home Business Owners & Home Owners who share a driveway:
FYI on October 18 at 7:30 pm at Town Hall, the Commissioners of Poolesville will be discussing proposed changes in zoning language that could effect your rights to operate a home business in the future. Under consideration is Ordinance 182 & 183 which would prohibit “any special exception that increases the number of vehicles using the driveway”.
The proposed changes in #183 would prohibit homes which share a common driveway from being granted a special exception. Certain home businesses are permitted in residential zoned neighborhoods under existing town codes. The board of zoning appeals in granting special exceptions insures that residential neighborhoods are protected from undesirable impact through the evaluation of existing zoning guidelines. For example the owner of the business must live in the home.
If a neighbor is not burdened by another having a business, then to restrict home owners from home-based business is too great a limitation on our freedoms. In this age of recession and poor job opportunity, radical traffic congestion and the desire for more and more to work from home so as to be more actively present in raising children, to simply cut off the option is unwarranted. Clearly, home-based businesses that can demonstrate little or no undue burden on their neighbors should be allowed. If the zoning board determines that no additional or unreasonable burden of a home business exists, and it meets all other criteria af a town’s ordinance, then it should be allowed.
Shared driveway owners should be treated as all other home owners. They should not be excluded from the right to apply for a special exception and have a home business. To do so is to limit the use of the home.
Home business is returning. It is a healthy aspect of our community.
It provides valued local services and reduces travel. It removes the wasted hours of a commute.
If you want to learn more about proposed changes which could exclude the possibility of a home business on a shared driveway, please come to the town meeting Oct. 18 and assist our town leaders make decisions that will lead us in the best way.
Dr. Robin Mevissen
Dr. Thomas McInnes
Signs of the Impact of Selby’s Closing
4 days ago
Would a simple solution be for business patrons to park in the street? I really don't understand why someone would buy a home with a shared driveway and then complain about sharing their driveway. What if one party owns 4 or 5 cars?
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question, "I really don't understand why someone would buy a home with a shared driveway and then complain about sharing their driveway", is pretty simple. When Mevissen purchased her house she agreed to a set of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) and a driveway easement Declaration in her deed as recorded in Montgomery County land record, as did the adjoining lot owners. In Mevissen's case, the CC&Rs and driveway easement Declaration limits lots to "residential use" and that lot owners may not advertise they are using their lot for business purposes. CC&R's and a driveway easement Declaration are contracts and if breached are enforceable in a Court of law. Mevissen broke her promise to her neighbors and violated the terms of her contracts and Deed.
ReplyDeleteThese residential contractual agreements differ from the Board of Zoning Appeals granting a special exception. Zoning is not necessarily dependent upon restrictive agreements between lot owners. A cascade of paying customers is completely different than a lot owner's use of owning multiple cars. For example, say someone shared a river dock and contractually agreed the dock would be used by family and friends. Then all of a sudden one party allowed commercial fishing boats to use the dock and sell fish and fishing tours for a fee from that dock. The neighbor sharing the dock has an obligation to enforce the contractual agreements. It is deceitful for the lot owner who is the business owner to have initially signed the agreements knowing they had no intent of following these contractual agreements. This is taking advantage of the neighbor and shared dock owner. It would also be a disservice to other local dock owners to allow this infraction to continue.
This analogy demonstrates total disregard to the shared dock owner’s peaceful enjoyment of property and property value with increased risk and liability, similarly as it is with the shared driveway. That is why a neighbor can and should complain. If Mevissen wants to stay in business she ought do the right thing; honor her agreements, move to the commercial district of Town and provide unencumbered service to the community.
IMO - Neighborhood Covenants violate the U.S. Constitution and should be outlawed. How about if Dr. M's clients park in the street and walk down the LEFT side of the driveway? Would that bother you too? Shared & stovepipe driveways are the dumbest thing Poolesville planners have ever done.
ReplyDeleteAn ordinance was written and passed by the Commissioners in October 2009 which states that no special exception may be granted that materially increases the number of vehicles using a shared driveway.
ReplyDeleteIf the business requires its patrons to park in the street, then a special exception can be granted. RIGHT?
ReplyDeletewho decides what is burden? the neighbor?
ReplyDelete