Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />MAY 16 1989 <br />Roos 76 PAGE 851 <br />employees he had and what is the most he has had. Administrator <br />Chandler repeated the 3 options given by staff, and explained <br />that he had gone with the third alternative in an attempt to <br />equitably resolve the matter from the standpoint of Mr. Kirrie <br />and the intent of the Commission. He reiterated that he never <br />received documentation as to the average number of employees or <br />the maximum number of employees. <br />Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the applicant, noted <br />that he has been involved with the ROSE 4 District and Mr. Kirrie <br />for several years now. He felt the real issue is that Mr. Kirrie <br />was given site plan approval by this Board with no conditions <br />except one, and that was that he reduce the scope of his proposed <br />expansion by one half. He did that and submitted plans to staff, <br />and subsequently applied for a building permit. At this point in <br />time, however, the building permit is being held up. Building <br />Director Ester Rymer has advised that the Planning Dept. will not <br />release the site plan that was approved a year ago. Everything <br />that the Building Dept. needs to issue the permit has been <br />submitted in order, but the Planning Dept. will not release the <br />site plan because they are requiring Mr. Kirrie to state on the <br />site plan the number of employees he proposes to have. Attorney <br />O'Haire advised that he and Administrator Chandler have been <br />going back and forth with staff on this, but Mr. Kirrie feels the <br />issue is that there is no requirement by this Board or in the <br />ordinances that the number of employees be stated on the site <br />plan as a condition of release of site plan. <br />Mr. Kirrie feels a little paranoid about this because ROSE -4 was <br />opposed by staff; his site plan was opposed by staff; and his <br />building permit has been opposed by staff. Staff does not like <br />what ROSE -4 is or what Mr. Kirrie is doing because it lies in the <br />face of conventional theory. That may be, but Mr. Kirrie is <br />perfectly legal, and he doesn't feel he should be subjected to <br />limitations for his site plan when other site plans in the county <br />are not required to state the number of employees. The only <br />18 <br />