My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/16/1989
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1989
>
5/16/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 10:51:48 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:50:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/16/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
NAY <br />meeting. He stated that the point he was trying to make is that <br />he helped author Ordinance 87-22 and that the intent of the <br />wording "conducted" is very specific. The intent was to protect <br />those who lived there from having an absentee owner, rental/lease <br />business type situation. They felt that those people who were <br />there and had been there for years operating these small <br />businesses needed that protection. Therefore, it was written <br />into Ordinance 87-22, and the wording "conducted by a family <br />member living on site" was to preclude an absentee owner from <br />turning it into a junkyard type situation. Mr. Kirrie emphasized <br />that Ordinance 87-22 stands by itself. It has absolutely nothing <br />to do with the other county ordinances that have home occupations <br />written into them. They are not concerned with other home <br />occupations, but are concerned with expanded home occupations. <br />Expanded means uses and intensity beyond a normal home <br />occupation. That is why it says expanded home occupation. He <br />felt that if you are going to expand, it is reasonable that you <br />not only will have a larger type operation, but somewhere you <br />would have more employees. It also was the intention of this <br />Commission at the time that they passed Ordinance 87-22 that <br />employees would in fact be a part of Ordinance 87-22. He <br />emphasized that legally he is still under Ordinance 87-22. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that the transcript of Minutes <br />shown on page 2 of Mr. Kirrie's packet, shows that Commissioner <br />Eggert is talking about a Motion to find a way to make the people <br />that are there now legal. It doesn't say for the people to come; <br />it says now. It seemed very clear to him that Commissioner <br />Eggert's intent was to make the existing number of people that <br />were there "now" legal and didn't mean to expand it and have 20, <br />50 or 200 people. It was the people that were "now". <br />Mr. Kirrie pointed out at the top of page 3 where Attorney <br />Vitunac says, "change the ROSE -4 criteria to make everyone legal <br />instead of grandfathered so they can expand in the future." That <br />is followed by Commissioner Eggert saying "whatever it takes is <br />989 <br />23 <br />KO 70 f'AGE ODU <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.