10/14/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kirrie stated that most of the objection to these businesses is from Mrs. Marshall, and he and Mr. Mensing feel that the letters in the handout make you think that the Associ- ation concurs with her complaint. Chairman Scurlock emphasized that the letters from people in the Association had not generated this meeting; it was the discrepancy in the number of existing business that were claimed to be in the area. Mr. Kirrie argued that most of the people who came here tonight are already licensed and the ones that are not will not stand up and identify themselves. He urged the Board to make these businesses legal since he felt to grandfather them in these was like a kiss of death, because if the business suffered more than 50% from fire damage, they would not be able to rebuild there, and would have to locate somewhere else. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that anyone has the right to insure his property to the extent that he will have money to rebuild his business somewhere else if fire damages are more than 50%. Mr. Kirrie felt that was not acceptable, because when you need to make an improvement, banks just laugh when you come in for a loan and say your business is grandfathered in. Margaret Hearndon, resident in the ROSE -4 area, stated that she and her husband have a licensed business in Roseland, but not in the ROSE -4 area. They have a grove maintenance business and keep their equipment in the grove, not at their home. They feel that anyone that has been there for 5 years should be allowed to stay, and they would not like to see them have to tear down their buildings. She also wanted ROSE -4 to be treated the same as any other area in the county. Elaine Johnson, resident of Bay Street in Roseland, urged the Commissioners to treat Roseland just as they would the rest of the county under Section 25-D of the Ordinance and not make any exceptions. 7t eoox f �9 ,�f�c 7 � 197 � Q� OCT 1