5/17/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAY 1'11988 mcr 7 except for the fact that staff has not taken into account the fact that the 4 employees have to be family members and do not drive to and from work. They go out the door, cross the yard and go to work. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that they don't have to, they could move off site eventually and drive to and from work. Attorney O'Haire stated that the ordinance requires them to live on the site, but Chairman Scurlock interjected that was not what he understood Director Keating to have said. He felt it is a policy thing and that staff is assuming that the children will grow up and move off. However, the ordinance says that they must live on site. Attorney O'Haire would assume then that you have to take out 16 trips and staff has not done that. Director Keating stressed that this points out one of the difficult aspects of enforcing this type of ordinance, which we have had problems with from the beginning. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that whenever we try to be flexible, we run into problems, and Director Keating reiterated that staff's interpretation has been that when a use is approved or is grandfathered in, if that use has an "x" number of family member employees which meet the criteria of living on site, subsequent moving of those family members off site would not put them in violation of the ordinance. That just seems rational. Attorney Vitunac asked Director Keating where in the ordinance he found that they are allowed to have any non -family employees, whether they are grandfathered or not, and Commissioners Bowman and Eggert pointed out that was discussed at the time we passed Ordinance 87-22. Attorney Vitunac stated that the ordinance says that to be a valid home occupational use, you must have only family members as employees. Commissioner Eggert recalled that the Board sat here in that meeting and said, "Grandfather them in and make them legal." 37