1/19/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 f!GE 602 Although the Board's approval of the subject ordinance amendment established procedures and set criteria for new home occupation uses in the ROSE -4 district, the Board did not resolve the issue of existing businesses at that time. While the Board indicated its intent to grandfather in those commercial uses established prior to passage of the ordinance amendment, there was uncertainty as to what businesses existed prior to the ordinance amendment date and what legal mechanism could be employed to effect the grandfathering. In order to address these issues, the Board directed the Planning staff to undertake a study of the ROSE -4 area, identifying all commercial uses, and to develop a procedure to allow granfathering of existing commercial uses. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The Study conducted by the staff was done on a parcel by parcel basis and included a visual survey to locate apparent businesses. Additionally, staff used a Tax Assessors office computer print-out of all occupational licenses to locate those businesses not visually identifiable. The staff then compared the printout with a list of property owners in the ROSE -4 district. The list was also used to verify that all visually identified businesses had valid occupational licenses. Two problems were uncovered with this search technique. First, if a license had been issued to a corporate name not containing the property owner's last name, the staff would be unable to locate it. Second, if a license were issued to a name not on the property owners list, it would also be missed. Prior County Commission Action At the July 21, 1987, meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, the staff presented the outcome of their search and presented alternatives for grandfathering of existing businesses. At that time, the staff indicated that a total of 8 businesses had been located, and that two of the eight businesses had since ceased operation. The staff also indicated that of the six remaining businesses, only 4 had occupational licenses. The July 21st meeting was also attended by a large number of Roseland residents who were opposed to the home occupation section of the Rose -4 regulations. These residents requested that the Commission repeal the home occupationsection of the Rose -4 district. Complicating the issue further was a discrepency between the number of businesses located by staff and the number of businesses reported by the public. Because of these factors, the Board decided to hold a special meeting to discuss this issue. On October 14, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners held a special night meeting in Sebastian. After listening to comments from the residents in attendance, the Board unanimously directed staff to prepare an ordinance repealing the home occupation section of the ROSE -4 regulations. The Board also agreed that only those businesses which could produce evidence showing that they had maintained active occupational licenses for the five years immediately prior to February 24, 1987, the date the home occupation amendment was approved, would be grandfathered. To implement the Board's directive of repealing the home occupation requirements, the staff drafted the attached ordinance. In creating the subject ordinance, staff included the grandfathering requirement of providing evidence of valid occupational licenses issued for the site and covering the five year period prior to the February 24, 1987, approval date. Also, in order to establish conditions under which a qualified nonconforming business may remain, staff utilized the nonconformit--�s section of the zoning code. As recommended in