My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/14/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
10/14/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:20 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:02:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/14/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
OCT 141987 i : > BOOL( 69 : FacE 7.0 . <br />Christopher Kirrie wished to be able to continue in his <br />father's family business while living in the same area, and have <br />the ability to expand the business. He asked how many of the <br />people in attendance actually live in the ROSE -4 area, and about <br />one half of the audience raised their hands. <br />Director Keating explained that if Alternative #4 is chosen, <br />Mr. Kirrie's business would be allowed to remain, and he would <br />not have to comply with additional site plan requirements; <br />however, he would be held to the same nuisance, junk, and outside <br />storage restrictions as anyone else in the county. The business <br />would be transferrable, as ownership is not a criterion of <br />non -conformity. He would not be allowed to expand the business <br />with additional structures or hire additional outside employees. <br />Mr. Busch wanted to reply to Mr. Kirrie's statement that the <br />Association endorsed Mrs. Marshall's complaint, but Chairman <br />Scurlock emphasized that the Board did not want to listen to any <br />debate between Mr. Kirrie and the Association about whether or <br />not the Association had endorsed Mrs. Marshall's complaint, <br />because that is not the issue here. He repeated that this <br />meeting is being held tonight to get the input of all of the <br />people in the area regarding home occupational uses. <br />Nancy Waters, 7950 128th Street, noted that no one forced <br />her to buy her property 11 years ago. She knew what was there <br />then, and does not have any trouble about what is there now. <br />Being a widow, she can always count on her neighbors for help and <br />felt the existing businesses should be allowed to continue. She <br />believed the pictures taken by staff of the existing business in <br />0 <br />the area is an invasion of privacy. <br />John Edmonds, 11155 Roseland Road, felt that Ordinance 87-22 <br />- is offensive in allowing special categories, which include <br />- metalworking and casting, and permits special service areas and <br />signage._ As he understood it, there are no restrictions in <br />these categories or they are considerably reduced. He believed <br />that industrial uses should not be allowed in this area. <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.