5/16/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r - MAY 16 1989 ROOK 76 PAGE 857 what we are asking", and then Attorney Vitunac advised that "one of the changes will be that home occupations in the ROSE -4 will be allowed to hire outside employees". Mr. Kirrie wondered how much more specific can we get. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that it didn't say "additional outside employees", and Commissioner Eggert pointed out that Mr. Kirrie already had them. Administrator Chandler explained that the approved Minutes of that meeting, which is the official record, showed that the intent was to try to let Mr. Kirrie maintain the numbers of individuals he had there at that point in time. The Administrator didn't feel there was any question, as you go through the full set of the Minutes and look at the representations that were made by the applicant, that this whole site plan was related to on-site family members, including representations made by the traffic engineer for the applicant where they went through trip generations, etc. He noted that there is another provision in this ordinance which ties into the trips related to or equal to what would ordinarily be a single family residence. Commissioner Scurlock explained to Mr. Kirrie that he knew exactly what he had meant in that meeting. The intent then was, as it is now, and there were a number of people who would have been quite happy to have Mr. Kirrie out of there, but this Commission said no, that was not fair. We were trying to allow him to have some expansion in terms of his physical structure there, to let him improve his business, to allow him and his family to conduct a business for another period of time, and allow whatever number of employees that he presently had working there on a day to day basis. The intent was to allow that number to continue, not the same individuals, but that number. If Mr. Kirrie can tell us, as an honest man, that the number was 20 or 10 or 12, then we can deal with that. 24