Laserfiche WebLink
OCT 14 1987 BOOK 69 FAGE 697 <br />that time, there were several people in attendance who had <br />businesses in existence prior to the adoption of this ordinance, <br />and the Board wanted to find a method of grandfathering them in. <br />At that meeting it was alleged that there were 43 existing <br />businesses in the ROSE -4 District, but after driving through the <br />area, staff could identify only 6, 5 of which had home occupa- <br />tional licenses. Staff presented that information to the Board <br />at the meeting of July 21, 1987, along with several alternatives. <br />However, due to objections raised at that meeting about the <br />additional home occupation uses allowed in Ordinance 87-22, and <br />the discrepancy in the numbers of the existing businesses, the <br />Board decided to schedule this meeting in order to gain the input <br />of everyone concerned. <br />Director Keating then reviewed the alternatives as shown on <br />the following graph: <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />1) Grandfather all home occupations existing prior to 2124/87, <br />not required to meet criteria. <br />2) Grandfather all home occupation with valid occupational <br />licenses prior to 2/24/87, without meeting criteria. <br />3) Require all home occupations to comply with criteria whether <br />they existed prior to 2/24/87 or are newly created. Permit a <br />90 -day grace period for compliance. <br />4) (New) Grandfather only those businesses which can prove that <br />they had valid occupational licenses for the last 5 years <br />prior to 2/24/87. <br />M <br />8 <br />M <br />M <br />L <br />