10/14/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

UT 14,681 BOOK 69 PAGE 701 Mr. Busch felt that they are looking at those people who have been in the ROSE -4 area and have applied for occupational licenses -- approximately 5 businesses. Commissioner Wheeler believed that alternative #4 would be the closest to what the Association prefers, i.e. that they have no objection to the businesses that have been operating legally for quite some time prior to the establishment of the ROSE -4 District, but do object to the continuing of the ones that have come in under the fence or the ones that may want to be there in the future. Commissioner Eggert asked how they felt about somebody coming in only one year prior to the ROSE -4 District, and Mr. Busch felt that should be up to the Board. However, they do feel that whatever businesses are allowed to continue should be made to comply with the requirements of the ordinance, just as any other business would have to anywhere else in the county. Chairman Scurlock stressed that what he keeps hearing from people is that this is a growing area, a fine community, and a special part of the county, and that they want to be treated just like the rest of the county where standards have been adopted to assure that if a transition does take place, an improvement takes place, not a degradation. This statement was followed by much clapping. Commissioner Bird pointed out that there are certain home occupational uses allowed in all residential districts of the county, such as seamtresses, telephone services, bookkeeping services, and that these would be allowed in the ROSE -4 district also. Frank DeJoia, 11625 Roseland Road, emphasized that the Roseland Property Owners Association likes to keep up with all zoning that affects any part of the Roseland area. Presenting a map of the Rose -4 area showing the exact boundaries, Mr. DeJoia stated that he believed the active industrial runs only along Gibson Street and not on three sides as contended by some people. 12