5/16/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIN members he had there, and she felt that was our problem right now. Attorney Vitunac stressed that we even bent over backwards further than that, which probably is more than the law allows. We gave him more than family members and gave him whatever members he had working there at that particular time in history, and he won't tell us what that number is. Why not? Attorney O'Haire felt that it is because it is a requirement being made of him that is not being made of anyone else. He maintained that Mr. Kirrie is not improperly zoned, and has not been improperly zoned. ROSE -4 is a zoning category just like our 1-A and Mr. Kirrie made application for site plan approval on that. He is not illegal. Director Keating stated that Attorney O'Haire is incorrect. There is a provision in the ordinances to allow home occupations throughout the county, and one of the provisions in there is very similar to ROSE -4. The ROSE -4 district only allows the activity to be conducted by family members residing in the place where the home occupation approval is given. Director Keating emphasized that staff approves home occupations all the time and asks for the number of people who will be engaged in that activity. Commissioner Scurlock understood then that it is common practice for the county to ask the number of people who will be employed in that operation and that the ordinance limits it to family members, and Director Keating confirmed that the County has a form for that that has to be filled out, signed and notarized. Chairman Wheeler was sympathetic toward Mr. Kirrie, but in looking at home occupations under the ROSE -4 ordinance, he didn't feel that "conducted" meant "supervise". Commissioner Scurlock felt that the whole effort at the time was to try to be fair and say we will hold you harmless and what you have now is what you got, and we are not going to come in and reduce the number of employees, but just tell us how many y y t6 0 9 ti 21 mor PAGE. 854