My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/21/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
7/21/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:19 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:43:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/21/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4UL 21 1987 BOOK (,�"E 890 <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize staff to <br />advertise a public hearing to reconsider the entire <br />ordinance on home occupational uses in the ROSE -4 <br />District. <br />Commissioner Bowman did not feel another public hearing was <br />necessary if we took Alternative #3, which would provide a 90 -day <br />period to allow all existing businesses to obtain an occupational <br />license. <br />Chairman Scurlock felt we need to reconsider the whole issue <br />and notify everyone of the scheduled meeting. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion <br />was voted on and carried unanimously. <br />Lena Marshall suggested that items c & d be deleted from <br />the grandfather clause in Ordinance 87-22. The residents are not <br />opposed to existing businesses, just to any additional businesses <br />being grandfathered. While they would prefer not to have any of <br />the existing businesses, they realize a few may have to be <br />grandfathered in. She urged the Board not to encourage more <br />illegal businesses to come forth and be grandfathered in. She <br />felt that they might have to deal with the metal casing business <br />- and the lawn mower service, but objected to the contractor's <br />office owned by Fred Mensing and the service businesses. In <br />addition, she believed that some misrepresentation was made on <br />February 24th by Attorney O'Haire on behalf of Fred Mensing <br />regarding the existing home occupations, and pointed out that <br />Attorney O'Haire even admitted that he drafted a part of the <br />ordinance that appears to be geared in favor of Fred Mensing's <br />contractor's office. <br />The Commissioners felt that all these arguments should be <br />made -at the public hearing, and directed staff to schedule an <br />48 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.