John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum Archive

Greetings all,

New question here, from a new user - hopefully a question not talked to death: Home-based studio businesses that are operating legally & above board.

I've just finished a few years living in Detroit, historic home of the world's most famous home studio of all time (Motown, of course). And would you believe it...? Today, Detroit City regulations would never even allow Motown to exist legally. Fact is, ALL home-based businesses that have any sort of visiting clients are illegal in Detroit.

Regardless of this, I've operated a home studio here under the radar for some time (it's the way it's done here), but now I am in the process of buying a house on 3 acres of land in rural Michigan... (Dexter/Ann Arbor area). I'd like to build a separate studio in an outbuilding behind the main house.

Question is, though: Even in a rural area, how do I find out if this can be done legally?

Specifically:

- How do you get local zoning boards friendly to the idea of 'recording studios'? (does soundproofing matter, or are they typically just freaked out)?

- I'm hoping to use the studio about 50% of the time for pay. How do I get legal approval to do such a thing? (It's a home based business, but it also requires it's own building - I fear this combination of factors is legally going to be a major stumbling block.)

- Is there a more 'tactful' way of going about getting all legal when building a studio outbuilding for a home recording business (like - tell them I'm building a multi-purpose building - partially used for recording business, partially for storing my collection of expense lawn ornaments? or a really hi-tech play room for the kids?)

I would love to hear any and all anecdotes from folks who have tried to do this the legal way (home business permits, building inspector run-ins, zoning board hearings, etc.) I don't want to buy a house simply to find out that I can't do what I want.

Plus, I'm seeing all these fancy studios going up in the 'Under Construction' section. Somebody must be getting some permits! (Or greasing some palms .

Thanks much & congrats on such a wonderful forum & resource.

Best,
Adam Druckman
drawingroom, detroit

----

Adam,

It isn't a matter of getting them to like the type of business you want to run - it is either allowed - or not allowed.......

So if it's allowed in your zone - you just apply for a zoning permit (along with your code compliant building permit) and they have to grant you this as you are conforming to the regulations.

If it is not conforming - then your work is much more difficult - you would have to apply for a variance........ they do not have to grant you one.

There would be public hearings....... your neighbors have a voice at that point....... etc., etc.

If i were you i would make it a point to buy my home where i knew they had to grant the permit....... and would keep quiet about my intentions with the neighborhood until i was ready to actually build (someone can always apply to have a zoning change if they caught wind of it 1st.

BUT THEY CANNOT REFUSE TO GIVE YOU A PERMIT FOR AN ALLOWED USE JUST BECAUSE IT IS A RECORDING STUDIO.

However,

They can set up regulations in such a manner that it makes it impossible for you to do what you want................. for example - in R1 or R2 (residential) zoning they can establish regulations that for a home business you can only use a maximum of 300sf of the home and that outbuildings may not be used for business purposes - and as such you would not be able to build your studio there......

I would reccomend that you hire a very savy lawyer - one who specializes in land use - and you let him make certain that wherever you buy you will be able to do what you want to do............

The real bottom line is that this is something which is different town to town within a state - never mind different states - no one here will really be able to answer your questions specifically - you need an attorney for that - one in your state.

Rod

Thanks so much for the reply. Of course, you're right; either you're allowed to do it legally, or you're not.

However, your points are well-taken that it pays to have some stealth, at least as far as neighbors are concerned. I also know that in a small town, word travels fast... (what if the zoning officer knows my neighbors? Maybe I'm just habitually paranoid, after years of doing this stuff under the radar.)

But, I'm determined to go above board with this, so:

I've called the zoning office, & learned that pole barns and other 'accessory buildings for home occupations' are allowed on residential property in the area I'm planning to move (assuming they meet the building code) as long as they don't take up more than 30% of the property.

I am scheduling a more detailed in-person appointment with the zoning administrator to really get into the nitty gritty. Anyone know a good construction law attorney in Michigan? Preferably one who knows something about standing waves and soundproofing .

Would love to hear any and all advice on how to best accomplish this sort of zoning meeting (questions to ask, forms to ask for, should I wear a tie:).

Thanks again for a great forum. It's interesting - there are so few places (anywhere) to get this sort of information.

Best,
Adam
Drawingroom, detroit

Adam,

Accessory buildings are one thing - home business (by designation) is another thing altogether.

I would reccomend that you do not get into any sort of discussion with the zoning official (hell he just might have a relative next to where you are going to live)

What you want to do is get a copy of the zoning regulations.

You want a copy of the zoning map.

Then you want to identify the exact zoning of your potential property, and check the zoning regulations to determine what is allowed in that zone.

This way you can determine whether it is an allowed use or not.

You can do all of this without giving up anything about your intent.

I took a look at the Ann Arbor zoning regs (you can see them online..... and in the single family residential zones it doesn't look (at 1st glance) like a permitter use...... they do allow (in the list) individual stringed instrument lessons - but they have an entire paragraph devoted to potential noise and electrical interference...... maybe they have been down this path with problems in the past.

They do not (however) actually address anwhere in the zoning regs specifically a recording studio.

As I said earlier - take it slow and gather your data 1st - and when you think you have uit figured out - spend a few hours worth of money with an attorney to make certain you're right.

Rod

Yes, this is what my gut is telling me (don't reveal intentions to a zoning person yet).

The actual location of the home is in Dexter, MI (just west of Ann Arbor). Their zoning ordinances are online here:

http://twp-dexter.org/VHosts/Dexter/ord ... gordinance

Not that you'll want to read the whole darn thing (it's 26 sections long)! I've read most of the more interesting parts, and it looks like I could theoretically build/run a studio for profit (but I'm no lawyer).

Here's the most promising section, regarding how property in my area (zoned for "Recreation Conservation" - which requires that all homes be at least 5 acres apart!) is zoned for permitted accessory uses/buildings:

"Permitted Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily incidental to and subordinate to the permitted principle use, including home occupations, roadside stands, agricultural buildings and structures, and private stables."

BTW, 'home occupations' are allowed as long as you don't have employees who live outside of your home (plus some other restrictions that are likely unimportant - no explosives, no outdoor storage, etc. )

There's this little nugget about home occupations:

"No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the lot."

Soundproofing would take care of that (not cheaply, but...)

And finally this:

"Visits by customers shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m."

So, what if the customer visits at 5pm, but doesn't leave until 2am? I suspect this is the only problem I might need a variance for.

I've also asked a local builder about this whole thing... He says that the local government is sort of run like an old boys network. Otherwise, people typically just do what they want to, it's kinda like the Wild West, he says... not a lot of restrictions due to the rural nature. Of course, if someone complains....

Still love to hear other folks experiences. I can't believe this topic hasn't been covered before? (If so, I'd love to read the threads.)

Best,
Adam Druckman
drawingroom, detroit

Adam,

Actually - you glossed over a couple of things that I would consider very important:

A. The nonresidential use shall only be incidental to the primary residential use and shall not occupy more than twenty percent (20%) of the gross floor area of said dwelling unit.

So if you purchase a 2,400 s.f. home - you are limited to 480 s.f. of studio space........ that's pretty cramped.

E. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of the building or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation other than a permitted sign. The entrance to the space devoted to the home occupation shall be from within the dwelling.

If the entrance to the home occupation "shall be" (mandatory to comply) from within the dwelling - this kills the idea of a seperate outbuilding housing your studio.


Of all of the resptrictions indicated - i would think that the 20% max based on dwelling unit gross floor area would be the killer.........

Oh - the reason (I would venture to guess) that this has never been discussed here is due to the fact that most home studios are not really commercial ventures.......... they may have an occassional customer - but they are really just home studios.......

Rod

Another possible barb in their language - "as long as you don't have employees who live outside of your home" -

This smells (to me) like a possible parking space clause could rear its ugly head (as if the 20% thing weren't enough)

What size were you considering for your studio building, BTW?

It's no wonder so many studios are done "under the radar" - if they were more reasonable in their usage requirements, people wouldn't have to cheat. My one next-door neighbor's "Jerry Springer candidate" son sees nothing wrong with firing up his Ozzie albums on a loud boombox OUTSIDE at 1 AM if he's working on his car, but if/when I build my separate studio I'll have to jump through all the hoops or lie about some things - so who's the bad citizen? At least my building will be inaudible from 30 feet within my property lines no matter WHAT I'm doing inside... Steve

Ah, now this conversation is getting interesting...

This is where I expected things to go, but thought it was my own paranoia. Apparently, you DO have to be a bit deceptive with the authorities. Or, at least, many of us feel you still do. (I certainly have this nagging fear that being honest about this means a big fat 'No' from the local ordinance police.) Weird, eh? And they call this America... maybe it's just the times.

But on the other hand...

Rod - doesn't it seem that these various ordinances contradict each other? What the heck is an "entrance" to a home occupation? Consider this scenario:

Say I have a studio outbuilding. Say there's also a mixing room in my residential house - takes up 10% of the house floor space (which is in fact something I'm planning to set-up). Say I do all the business accounting in the residence, make phone calls, do scheduling, rough mixing, meet & greet potential clients, even write songs for my own releases... that sort of thing. But then... live tracking & full band work is done in the studio outbuilding. Seems to me like I'm perfectly following the ordinance, no?

Then there's the 20% rule. It's weird, but it only applies to the principal residence... and as I quoted earlier, accessory buildings for home occupations are clearly allowed. It's very contradictory. Consider a farmer - he's allowed a ton of outbuildings (this is a farmer-friendly area - there are many farms in my area). NONE of the farming business takes place in his residence. Where's the entrance to the farmer's 'home occupation'?

I know what you're thinking - I'm sounding like a lawyer now .

Of course, I'm not a lawyer. But I am thinking Rod's advice to get a smart lawyer is starting to make tons of sense.

I'm being told (locally anyway) that the township I'm considering moving is among the most lenient places in the state for out-buildings, home occupations, etc. I don't think it gets much easier than this.

Shit... if easier locales in the US exist, please TELL me about them. I want to hear the stories.

Or... do 'legal' working home studios in the US not even exist?

Do tell. Someone.

Best,
Adam

P.S. If anyone knows a studio-aware business lawyer in SE Michigan, let me know.

Adam,

One of the problems here is that you are reading into rather than reading - the regulations.

I am not an attorney - and therefor cannot give you legal advice - I am however an expert in various building and life safety codes - and also have represented a number of clients in zoning efforts.

One of the reasons I am successful in these endevors is that i do not interpert anything - i simply read the written word.

Rod - doesn't it seem that these various ordinances contradict each other?

Not in the least.

What the heck is an "entrance" to a home occupation? Consider this scenario:

Say I have a studio outbuilding. Say there's also a mixing room in my residential house - takes up 10% of the house floor space (which is in fact something I'm planning to set-up). Say I do all the business accounting in the residence, make phone calls, do scheduling, rough mixing, meet & greet potential clients, even write songs for my own releases... that sort of thing. But then... live tracking & full band work is done in the studio outbuilding. Seems to me like I'm perfectly following the ordinance, no?

No you are not. The entrance to the space devoted to the home occupation shall be from within the dwelling.

What part of that is unclear to you? You are talking about space devoted to tracking a band - as a part of your home occupation - and they require the entrance to that "shall be within the dwelling". How does the outbuilding meet the requirement?

Allowed outbuildings are required to be incidental to and accessory to the main use:

from the regulations:

C. Permitted Accessory Uses:

1. Accessory uses and structures customarily incidental to and subordinate to the permitted principle use, including home occupations, roadside stands, agricultural buildings and structures, and private stables.

Everything here begins with the main use.

Thus - a detached gararge would be incidental to and accessory to a residence - as would a storage shed - as would a poolhouse for the equipment for a swimming pool - but an airplane hanger would not - nor would a resturant - nor would a recording studio.

It specifically allows home occupations - but it also defines home occupations in the beginning of the regulations.

That's the thing about the regs - you have to take them in their entirety, read them exactly the way they are written - here is their definition of a home occupation:

Home Occupation: Any use customarily conducted entirely within a dwelling which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the lot; does not change the character of the dwelling, and meets all applicable provisions of this Ordinance.

Read the above - the intent is clear..... and by the definition - a studio (which is a use that is NOT customarily conducted entirely within a dwelling) is not an allowed home occupation.

Then there's the 20% rule. It's weird, but it only applies to the principal residence... and as I quoted earlier, accessory buildings for home occupations are clearly allowed. It's very contradictory. Consider a farmer - he's allowed a ton of outbuildings (this is a farmer-friendly area - there are many farms in my area). NONE of the farming business takes place in his residence. Where's the entrance to the farmer's 'home occupation'?

There is no entrance to the farmers home occupation - because the farmer does not have a home occupation.

Once again - read the reulations:

B. Permitted Principal Uses:

1. Commercial agriculture, excluding the slaughtering of farm animals for commercial food production.

2. Public or private conservation areas, game refuges, and similar uses, but excluding campgrounds.

3. Public or private outdoor recreation, limited to golf courses and country clubs, play fields, playgrounds, and similar recreation facilities of an open space and low intensity character.

4. Commercial stables.

5. Single family dwellings.

6. Day care, family home.

7. Foster care facility, family home; provided it is not located within one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet of another such facility.

The farm is the principal use - the farmers house would be a secondary accessory use which is incidental to the primary use.

See the difference?

One of your mistakes is trying to read into the regs....... you state:

"and as I quoted earlier, accessory buildings for home occupations are clearly allowed"

They most certainly are not allowed - clearly or otherwise........ you have to read it again:

Accessory uses and structures customarily incidental to and subordinate to the permitted principle use

That does not say that structures incidental to an accessory use is permitted - it says that structures incidental to a PRINCIPAL use is permitted. You mistake the fact that they allow home occupations (which they require to be in the home) with the allowance of structures for a purpose which is NOT incidental to or accessory to - the principal use.

In my understanding of the written word - you cannot make it from A to B here.

So you can have your garage - and storage shed - the farmer can have his silo and home - the golf course can have it's clubhouse - etc., etc.

But it doesn't say that you can have a farm if your primary use is residential.

And there is nothing confusing about the entrance requirement or the 20%

You can take up to 20% of your primary residence and use it for your home business - you cannot perform your home business out of a detached building - period - it is not compliant with the regulations.

I don't know what else to say...........

Rod

Thanks for the detailed reply, Rod. You are my compass of reason. At some point, a lawyer will take over this role - but for now, you're filling in .

I'm am starting to think that it is very hard to pull off a decent sized for-profit home studio legally without either: 1) A VERY lenient locality (which seems rare; I'm still waiting for some proof these even exist); 2) Getting some sort of variance on current zoning restrictions &/or having a 'well-connected' lawyer "finesse" permission for you; or 3) Bending the rules a bit somewhere (which puts me back under the radar).

Bear with me as I present another approach... I know I need to ask a lawyer. We're just brainstorming for fun at this point. Pretend we're shooting this around over a couple of beers (which would really be more fun):

Say I ditch the outbuilding idea. Instead, I expand my house with a soundproofed addition. I have plenty of property, This would not be a problem.

I do this by finishing the garage & attaching a great room to it for tracking, It's done completely in keeping with the house's current appearance & looks attractive & very consistent.

Now my house is 4000 sq. feet (was 2200). It's a beautiful great room, with high ceilings, skylights, lovely artwork, plants & space for a grand piano and much more. There is also strategically placed acoustic treatment, but the overall effect is 'amazing great room/music conservatory'. A future buyer would love it - even if they never heard of an XLR cable..

The garage is now the control room (for a future buyer, I could modestly convert it into one of those fancy 'media rooms' all the rich folks have ).

I drop a chunk of change on this (likely upwards of a $100 grand, I'd guess), but it's all just home improvement. It's tax deductible. And my house is now worth more. (Unlike the outbuilding approach - an attractive nuisance if I ever saw one, in real estate terms.)

I get bulidings permits to do this, do it all legally, but remember: it's simply a residential home renovation.

My house is bigger now. And, perhaps, I've raised the overall home values in the neighborhood a bit.

Now, my wife, kids and I have a great music room for kids' music lessons, piano parties, impromptu hootenanies with the neighborhood children, etc. We can lounge around on the couch. Watch DVDs in the 'media room'. I can write & record my own music (& my wife's). If I stop there, it's still a beautiful thing. I also have the world's coolest office (the control room).

Of course, I realize I am technically breaking the law as soon as I have a paid client visit.

But say I go further: A while after it's been built, I eventually do declare my home occupation. I get a permit from the township (a very simple form that does not involve any sort of home inspection).

If I'm ever forced to reveal which 20% of my home is for my business (locals are telling me this would be very rare), I would simply point to the control room. The great room is for my personal use. It would be very hard to prove otherwise, or so I am told by locals who "know". Or so they say.

Ok. So I admit it's not a perfect plan. I know this is still working 'under the radar' in some fashion.

Another idea (perhaps legally risky, as it reveals much): I could hire a lawyer to try and get me a variance to expand my allowed 20% space to 35% (or whatever it needed to be).

What I am suggesting with this scenario is that it may actually be easier to building onto the home & get a variance on the 'percent rule' than to convince the zoning board to allow for a full-blown home occupation in an outbuilding studio.

Thoughts?

Adam,
(in Detroit, soon to be in the sticks)

Adam:

Rod has ben attempting to give you advice from experience, which you keep on ignoring.

Straight question: You mentioned dropping 100k on the "improvements". Will it be acceptable if your business is shut down but you still have the improvements to you home?

Avare:

This is not me ignoring advice. I am listening very closely and very appreciatevely. But I am also responding with all of the intelligence and creativity I can muster. I may not be right, but I am using my head to respond and seeing what you all think. Perhaps I seem contrary, but our field of industry attracts some pretty contrary types, wouldn't you agree? .

I'm also not afraid of being shot down. But please don't be resist me challenging the situation with creative possibilities in the spirit of productive discourse. I suspect 90% of all home studio owners are forced to do this with their own "less than ideal, less than legal" situations. Shit, I'm still waiting for someone with a truly legal home recording business to chime in!

I am thoroughly enjoying the conversation, btw. Like I said, if we were at a pub doing this, we'd be on the third pitcher by now.

Best,
Adam Druckman
drawingroom, detroit.

P.S. Yes, it would be acceptable to add the improvements only for the purposes of home renovation. My wife & kids would love (& use... the wife's a successful professional songwriter) the new space. I would also likely see much of it back when I sell the home. The improvement is also tax-deductible. Keep in mind: I'm trying to be creative here. But we're also grown ups - A $100,000 loan @ 6% is only $575.00 a month. I know people who pay nearly half that for deluxe digital cable, broadband & Tivo. Of course, now we're talking about economics, not legality. Totally different topic. If I wanted to do something financially smart, I'd become a stock broker or something, & stay as far away from the recording business as possible .

AjD wrote:I do this by finishing the garage & attaching a great room to it for tracking, It's done completely in keeping with the house's current appearance & looks attractive & very consistent.

Now my house is 4000 sq. feet (was 2200). It's a beautiful great room, with high ceilings, skylights, lovely artwork, plants & space for a grand piano and much more. There is also strategically placed acoustic treatment, but the overall effect is 'amazing great room/music conservatory'. A future buyer would love it - even if they never heard of an XLR cable..

The garage is now the control room (for a future buyer, I could modestly convert it into one of those fancy 'media rooms' all the rich folks have ).

I drop a chunk of change on this (likely upwards of a $100 grand, I'd guess), but it's all just home improvement. It's tax deductible. And my house is now worth more. (Unlike the outbuilding approach - an attractive nuisance if I ever saw one, in real estate terms.)

I get bulidings permits to do this, do it all legally, but remember: it's simply a residential home renovation.

My house is bigger now. And, perhaps, I've raised the overall home values in the neighborhood a bit.

Now, my wife, kids and I have a great music room for kids' music lessons, piano parties, impromptu hootenanies with the neighborhood children, etc. We can lounge around on the couch. Watch DVDs in the 'media room'. I can write & record my own music (& my wife's). If I stop there, it's still a beautiful thing. I also have the world's coolest office (the control room).

Of course, I realize I am technically breaking the law as soon as I have a paid client visit.

But say I go further: A while after it's been built, I eventually do declare my home occupation. I get a permit from the township (a very simple form that does not involve any sort of home inspection).

If I'm ever forced to reveal which 20% of my home is for my business (locals are telling me this would be very rare), I would simply point to the control room. The great room is for my personal use. It would be very hard to prove otherwise, or so I am told by locals who "know". Or so they say.

Ok. So I admit it's not a perfect plan. I know this is still working 'under the radar' in some fashion.

Yes - still under the radar......... however - at least with the zoning permit you can get insurance to cover your home business - and seeing as the construction is all legal you would be covered under your home owner's insurance in the event of some catastrophy - and wouldn't have to worry about them abandoning you because of some technicality.

Another idea (perhaps legally risky, as it reveals much): I could hire a lawyer to try and get me a variance to expand my allowed 20% space to 35% (or whatever it needed to be).

What I am suggesting with this scenario is that it may actually be easier to building onto the home & get a variance on the 'percent rule' than to convince the zoning board to allow for a full-blown home occupation in an outbuilding studio.

This is a little more difficult - because in order for a variance to be granted (if the zoning board is operating as proscribed by law) you need to prove hardship .......... and that is a difficult thing to do in this case.......

Bear with me......... I'll give you an example of this - let's say that a piece of property is located in a zone where 500' of frontage is required - yet the lot only has 400.

You then apply for a zoning variance on the required frontage - and the hardship is the fact that the condition (less than 500' of frontage) existed due to no cause of your own - and the property would be a burden to you if you could not improve it.

The board now has to grant you a variance based on the fact that a true hardship exists......... you cannot magically make the property grow to 500' width at the road line.

Another example would be (and i have won this successfully in the past) if you were to purchase property that was zoned so you could build your recording studio - and then the town changes the zoning in that area...... the town has then created a hardship on your part by not allowing you the intended ALLOWED use of your property at the time you purchased it.... again they will grant you a variance.

HOWEVER - they are not supposed to grant a variance where hardship does not exist - and in the case of purchasing a place where you know up-front that you cannot use more than the 20% for your home business - there is (in fact) no hardship.

If I were on the board - and you brought that before me - I would respond with - no hardship - you can in fact build as large a studio as you want - and I will grant you a zoning permit for it's use - all you have to do is add on to the house until you final reach the point where 20% of it is large enough for your studio - but you have no hardship to convince me to grant you a variance.

There are plenty of zoning boards that play games - I have (personally) had numerous zoning board descisions overturned in court due to the fact that they did not make descisions based on this simple rule - but it is the rule. [/quote]

This is (again) from the zoning regulations in the town you are moving to - specifically relating to variances:

C. Variances: The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power to authorize specific variances from site development requirements such as lot area and width regulations, building height and bulk regulations, floor area rations, yard width and depth regulations, off-street parking and loading space requirements, and sign requirements of this Ordinance.

1. Required Findings: The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power to authorize specific variances from site development requirements provided that all the required findings listed below are met and the record of proceedings of the Zoning Board of Appeals contains evidence supporting each conclusion.

a. That there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which prevent carrying out the strict letter of this Ordinance. These hardships or difficulties shall not be deemed economic, but shall be evaluated in terms of the use of a particular parcel of land.

b. That a genuine practical difficulty exists because of unique circumstances or physical conditions such as narrowness, shallowness, shape, or topography of the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, that do not generally apply to other property or uses in the same zoning district, and shall not be recurrent in nature.

c. That the hardship or special conditions or circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant.

d. That the variance will relate only to property under control of the applicant.

e. That the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and will not cause a substantial adverse effect upon surrounding property, property values, and the use and enjoyment of property in the neighborhood or district.

f. That strict compliance with area, setbacks, frontage, height, bulk or density would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose, or would render conformity unnecessarily burdensome.

g. That the variance requested is the minimum amount necessary to overcome the inequality inherent in the particular property or mitigate the hardship.

h. That the variance shall not permit the establishment, within a district, of any use which is not a permitted principal use within that zoning district.

To grant you a variance from the 20% requirement would be a violation of a number of these regulations - more specifically - A - B - C - F - G and H.

Note that it states above (the underline and bold is mine so you don't miss it)

"The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power to authorize specific variances from site development requirements provided that all the required findings listed below are met and the record of proceedings of the Zoning Board of Appeals contains evidence supporting each conclusion

Focus on that word "ALL" - it's means just what it says..........

Rod

Great, great response Rod. Thanks. I am learning so much. It's sounding like the 'add-on to the house' option is much better than the outbuilding idea, at least legally. (And financially, it seems).

The one caveat is that I'll still be operating 'in a grey area' with respect to the 20% rule. And variances are hard to get. If anyone ever cares to put the screws to me about that (a potentially remote risk, though it's definitely there), I may get some sort of real grief. But it's certainly the much lesser of two evils.

I'm also starting to realize that, like so many things in life, this house purchase/studio business decision can't be completely a sure thing.

There are SO many factors at play. I can't SOLELY base my purchase decision on whether the zoning boards are slam dunks for a home recording business. And I can't move to some remote lawless corner of Alaska just to be certain (with apologies to all recordists living in remote lawless corners of Alaska).

I've got a family. I've got to worry about good schools, a nice atmosphere for my kids, a cool community for the wife & I, AND finding a nice house to live in (that's also a worthwhile investment). Shit, I may even be the first guy in the municipality to officially try something of this scale. It's a risk, and I know it.

(Plus, I have to live somewhere near other musicians! Otherwise, I'll have no clients!)

Thanks so much for your time. Next step for me: a confidential pow-wow with a locally in-the-know construction lawyer. I'll let you all know how it turns out.

Thanks again,
AjD

P.S. I'll say it again... it's damn peculiar that this topic is so rarely discussed in-depth on these sorts of forums. TapeOp.com, ProRec, rec.audio.pro, I've lurked them all for years and this topic is as scantily covered as a Super Bowl half-time show. So many thanks Rod.

Adam,

I am happy if I helped at all........ one of the reasons that this is not discussed widely is due to the fact that it is so specific to the town and state involved......

There are no set rules to play by - it isn't like the science of acoustic isolation or treatments - where the playing field is the same no matter where in the world you are........

One thing worth looking for is towns without zoning..... they do still exist - we actually have 2 in Connecticut without zoning regulations - - and in those you can do whatever you want with your land and be legal.

Rod