The Notice, which was received on August 22, stated that the illegal operation (teaching piano in her home) had to cease and desist by August 27, 2002. This gave her only five days to quit operating her business!!! The letter informed her that she had thirty days to file to the Borough Office and appeal the Notice. According to that, she should appeal by September 19, 2002. However, she was urged to IMMEDIATELY deliver a letter to the Borough Office, which she did. The letter requesting an appeal was dated August 23. The appeal meeting was scheduled September 17, even though she had been told that she had thirty days to prepare her appeal.

On September 10, 2002, a letter sent Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested was received from the Secretary-Treasurer of the Borough indicating that all individuals who filed an appeal would be billed for the costs of the hearing. It contained a copy of the Resolution that stated this fee was to be $175. The letter was dated August 6, but it was not recieved until September 10. Had she been informed earlier, she might have reconsidered the idea of appealing. Instead, it was 19 days later when she received the notification that she would have to split the cost of $175 with 6 other individuals who had appealed the in-home business Notice of Violation.

On the day of the appeal, the piano teacher presented the Notice of Violation and summarized its errors: 1)It was unsigned by a Borough Official; 2)The address was incorrect; and 3.) Thirty days was not allowed for the appeal.

She went on to quote the Borough Zoning Ordinance Article IV, Item 402 which affected home businesses in a low density residential district. In Item 403, immediately following the quoted law, a "Special Exception Uses" states "a. Home occupations, provided that no facade shall indicate from the exterior that the building is being utilized for any purpose other than that which is permitted by right in this Article. (See also Article XII, Section 1102.)," which referred to signs.

Since she had taught in her home beginning in 1981, she had never displayed a sign on the exterior of her home indicating such a service. She had neither placed her name on the mail box, nor on the entrance to her home. Her students had always been scheduled so that there was no need for waiting cars to be parked on the street in front of her home for long periods of time. In fact her driveway was amply able to supply the brief traffic that was entailed in the delivery and pick-up of students.

The teacher told the Borough officials in the hearing that in addition to the six before them that day, at least 13 other home businesses existed in the immediate neighborhood. In fact, according to a Centre Daily Times article dated September 8, 2002, in-home work is on the rise. According to a 2002 survey of over 1900 employees by a Reston, VA company, 92% said "the ability to work from home would be an important factor in deciding whether to accept a new job."

She went on to state that in many states and countries around the world what is known as "cottage industries" is not only permitted, but encouraged. These commercial and industrial uses known as cottage industries, being more extensive than home occupations, do not alter or disturb the residential nature of the premises or its surroundings. She concluded by saying that her business did not alter the community environment either.

In fact, she had had a business office in her home for ten years as the Borough Assessor. She was never cited as operating an illegal business at that time. She raised the question, "Why after 21 years was I cited for operating an illegal business?"

The answer, no doubt, was that a disgruntled neighbor had complained. In fact, she had received hate mail from the complainant. This could happen to any teacher. In an era where fine arts are given a back seat to sports, we need to be aware that at any time we could be called upon to "cease and desist" our business activities.

The teacher was quite distraught and brought the topic of zoning up at the CPMTA meeting. Several teachers spoke about the zoning laws in their areas and how they had filed for a permit to teach or put up signs as needed. It was determined that more about zoning needed to be discovered and a meeting was set for March to discuss this serious concern.

This teacher won her appeal. She used the zoning law, the errors of the Notice, and common sense to defeat the intents of the complainants. In a letter by the Borough, the Zoning Officer stated that the applicant for appeal had the burden of proving that her business was a special exception. He went on to state that she had done so more than adequately in that she had proven that she displays no outward sign of her profession, has never received noise complaints, has no employees, and does that service solely on her own. She presented evidence that music lessons are something customarily given in dwellings in the area. "In short, under a practical and sensible approach, the evidence demonstrates that piano lessons given by a woman in her home, where children learn on a one-to-one basis, qualifies as a special exception."

This story had a happy ending. However, it was grueling for the teacher. Increasingly these kinds of issues are being raised about music lessons with less happy results. Below is a letter from an attorney who gives suggestions about the correct approach to zoning issues in your area.

February 3, 2003