An interesting court decision out of the Connecticut Appellate Court involved a lawsuit by a president who applied to the association for a Home Occupancy Permit to operate a dog grooming business from her garage. After a protracted battle, the homeowner association appeal board argued that the proposed dog grooming business was a legal home occupation under the regulations, but because an attached garage is not part of a dwelling under its regulations, it said the Board properly upheld the zoning enforcement officer’s denial of the homeowner’s application. The uses not permitted in that subdivision included a physician’s office, restaurant, barber shop, beauty parlor, animal hospital and any activity that would constitute the manufacturer of goods or any activity that would require more than incidental traffic of clients to the residents. The regulations further provided that the business be inside of the building and not occupy more than 25% of it. It found that the line between permitted and prohibited uses is not intended to be drawn only with respect to potential traffic congestion, as opposed to any other purpose and claimed that it was in the Board’s prerogative to determine that a dog grooming business was more like a prohibited use than a permitted use.