Laserfiche WebLink
A 1 1988 <br />BOOK *I() MCr 69S <br />an occupational license to do business. We went to the zoning department and applied for <br />one and received one. Then, about a year and a half ago Betty Davis called on the phone <br />and told us we could not have a business here. We immediately went to see Mr. Shearer <br />about this and he told us not to worry about it that the zoning was up in the air. So we <br />didn't. Last January the decision was made to let us continue with our small business, it <br />was very pleasing to us and hope it is left at that. We do not believe that the Roseland <br />Property Owners Ass. means to do away with us and that they have misunderstood the zoning <br />as it was passed for our small home occupation. Mr. DeJoia has told me that they have no <br />wish to put us out of business and infect, is a customer of ours. <br />We have put our life and fortune into our business. We have a large investment in exspensive <br />sharpening equipment and dealerships. We have a F1. state tax license and pay tangible <br />property tax on the business. We are trying to do everthing legally. <br />We hope that the commissioners will not favor a five yr. occupational license and:that it <br />will be left as we are. <br />We appreciate all the time and effort and courtesy the county commissioners has given us <br />and hope the zoning is left as it was passed last.January. <br />jrely, <br />44..4eei <br />Ha & Joan Spau ing <br />Chairman Scurlock believed that the Spauldings just need to <br />provide staff with appropriate business records, etc., to prove <br />they have been in business there the required length of time. <br />C. N. Kirrie, 12855 79th Avenue, stated that it seems he and <br />several of his business -oriented neighbors are the subject of <br />this whole show, and he would like to go over the material <br />supplied the Board in today's agenda point by point in rebuttal <br />to staff. Re the statement in staff's memo "while the Board <br />indicated its intent to grandfather in those commercial uses <br />established prior to passage of the ordinance amendment...," Mr. <br />Kirrie contended that the fact is the Board clearly indicated <br />those existing businesses were to be made valid conforming uses, <br />not just grandfathered, and this is shown in the official <br />Minutes. <br />In regard to identifying the existing businesses, Mr. Kirrie <br />stated that the problems indicated by staff when they researched <br />and found just 8 businesses and only 4 with occupational <br />licenses, did not surface when he searched the files and found 23 <br />licenses. This same information was available to staff. <br />48 <br />