5/16/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would not be a question on which rate would be paid. In fact, our meeting was on February 28th, so if we had reached accord, he could have pulled the permit and the 1988 traffic impact fees would have been applicable. However, the fact that Mr. Kirrie did not accept the decision on the number of employees brings that time element into play again. Commissioner Bird asked if the Board has the flexibility in making a determination as to whether the old or the new traffic impact fee rate would apply. Attorney Vitunac did not believe the Board has the power to waive the traffic impact fees, but if there was a good faith dispute that wasn't clear, the Board could make a determination one way or another. Staff has given the Board an opinion, and has made every effort to allow him to come in under the old, cheaper rates if he had made an effort. Commissioner Scurlock understood the intent in the discussions of the Commission was some sort of reasonableness. He felt that if you took a strict interpretation of Ordinance 87-22, home occupations would be limited to on-site family members, and no other employees would be allowed. He felt that if the number was 9, 10, or 20, any of those conditions were more liberal. Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development, felt that the number of employees proposed by staff is very generous. Not only was there a consideration for how many employees would have been grandfathered given the size of the structure that was there in the first place, but staff also considered the size of the structure that was approved in a site plan expansion and worked backwards in figuring out how many employees would be there normally given the square footage and the average number of employees per square feet. Commissioner Eggert didn't feel there was any doubt as to what the Board was talking about in discussing this matter at past meetings. She believed it is just a question of how many 9VIAY 16 1989 FK,E 850