HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/1987SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, October 14, 1987
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Special Session at the Sebastian Community
Center, 1805 North Central Avenue, Sebastian, Florida, on
Wednesday, October 14, 1987, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. Present were
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, Vice
Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Gary C.
Wheeler. Also present were Charles P. Balczun, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of
County Commissioners; Robert Keating, Director of Planning 8
Development; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
PUBLIC HEARING - ROSE -4 ZONING DISTRICT - HOME OCCUPATIONAL USES
FNE TO ROSELAND AREA RESIDENTS
...; .. 1. µ
i.
rd of County Commissioners fIndian River
Florida, 'will be holdinga' special m'eefing ,on
ay,.October 14, 1987 at 7:30 p.m.in the,Sebasmunity Center . located 'at 1805 N. Central
Avenue in Sebastian, Florida. The topic'of;this meeting will
be the approved Home Occupation. Amendment to the.
Rose -4. Zoning' Districtwhich permits, additional ` home`
occupations .in addition_ to those permitted in other- 'resi- `'
dentia) zoning districts: '^ -
Li
The public is' invited 'to attend and voice' their opinions
concerning this issue "�.
_INDIAN' RIVER COUNTY -'
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
' BY: -s- Don. C. Scurlock, Jr:, ='
Chairman
OCT 14 1987 _ �001(. 60 PAGE 690
�OCT 1987
k.
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a /A-PA4911
r
in the matter of
in the
lished in said newspaper in the issues of `y
Court, was pub-
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, *and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed befoW me the day of�4� � y • 19
(SEAL)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Riv County, Florida)
BOOK
69 PACE 6.91
NOTICE OF A SPECIAL PUBLIC
MEETING OF THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The Board of County Commissioners ofIndi c
River County, Florida will hold a special
pec pu
meeting at the Sebastian Community Center lo-
cated at 1805 N•Central Avenue.y Oin ctober Sebastian.,
Florida at 7:30 p. will be .
1987. The topic of this meeting
discus-
sion of the approved home occupation amend-
ment to Sec. 15. ROSE -4: Roseland Residential
District, of the Code of as and Ordinances of '
Indian River County, known as the Zoning Code.
which permits additional home tiOco�rio��
other than normally Permitted
tial districts.
dappear at this meet-
ing to discuss their concerns, views, and op", -
ions. al decision
Anyone who may wish to apps any
which may be made at this meeting -11 need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the Proceed-
ings is made, which includes testimony and ew
dence upon which the appeal is based. -
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Don C. Scurlock. Jr.. -
Chairman
Sept. 25. 1987
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/2/87:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: October 2, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: ROSE -4 DISTRICT HOME
Robert M. Keat'ng,CP OCCUPATION STUDY
Director, Communit
Cyl
Development Division
FROM: David C. Nearing
Staff Planner
REFERENCES: Rose -4 memo
dave
It is requested that the information presented herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their special meeting of October 14, 1987.
2
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
At the February 24, 1987, meeting of the Board -.of County
Commissioners, Ordinance 87-22 was approved amending the Rose -4,
zoning district by permitting specific home occupations to be _
allowed in addition to those permitted in other residential
districts. The motion to approve the ordinance was accompanied -
by direction to staff to find a way to recognize and grandfather
all businesses in the Rose -4 area which were in existence prior
to February 24, 1987.
On July 21, 1987, the planning staff presented the Board with the
outcome of a study of existing businesses located' within the
Rose -4 zoning district. The study also contained several
alternatives for recognizing and grandfathering those businesses
which existed prior to February 24, 1987. After public
discussion during which opposition to the original amendment was
expressed, the Board felt that a public hearing should be held to
hear the opinions of the residents of the Roseland area, and
directed staff to schedule this meeting. The Board further
stated that staff should make no further effort in identifying
additional businesses other than those previously located.
Attached is a bopy of the staff summary and recommendations of
the July 21, 1987 meeting.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Since staff discontinued its search for businesses located in the
Rose -4 area, no additional. businesses have been identified
voluntarily. After the July 21, 1987, meeting, several persons
having businesses did contact the staff; however, these persons
were among those who had previously been identified. In
addition, since the approval of the Rose -4 Home Occupation
Ordinance on February 24, 1987, there have been no applications
for home occupation site plans, and very few inquiries concerning
possible home occupations.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the previously conducted analysis, staff recommends that
the Board of County Commissioners accept alternative three of the
attached staff recommendation dated July 8, 1987.
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 8, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
0or- SUBJECT: ROSE -4 DISTRICT HOME'
Robert M. Reatinq,/AICI?..--,7 OCCUPATION STUDY
Director, Community DeS61opment
Division
FROM: David C. NearingfjeREFERENCES:
Staff Planner
It is requested that the information presented herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 21, 1987.
OCT 14 X9817 s - BooK 69 qac 692
r"
CT 14 3987
DESCRIPTION
BOOK 69 FAUE 6.93
On February 24, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners voted
unanimously to approve Ordinance #87-22 which amended the Rose -4
Zoning District. This amendment. permitted a broader range of
home occupations in the ROSE -4 District than allowed in all other
residential districts. The additional occupations permitted under
this amendment are as follows:
a. Metal working and casting;
b. Contractor's office and storage of
contractor's materials, tools and equipment;
c. Lawn mower and small engine sales, service and
repair;
d. Service businesses (provided there shall be no
more than one sign advertising the same not in
excess of four square feet in size).
In order to .ensure compatibility with the residential nature of
the area, the amendment also contained criteria with which a use
must comply before a home occupation permit may be issued. All
home occupation uses in the ROSE -4 District must -obtain site plan
approval and meet the following criteria:
(1) The activity is conducted only by members
of the family living within the residence;
(2) Products are not offered for sale to the
general public and from the premises except
as herein otherwise provided;
(3) Any evidence of the occupation is screened
from the street by ty e.A screening;
(4) Traffic is not generated in excess of that
customary for residential uses;
(5) The property has been qualified for (and
continues to be qualified) for homestead
exemption for ad valorem tax purposes; and
(6) All home occupation activities must meet
yard setback requirements.
Although the Board's approval of the subject ordinance amendment
established procedures and set criteria for new home occupation
uses in the ROSE -4 district, the Board did not resolve the issue
of existing businesses. While the Board indicated its intent to
grandfather in those commercial uses established prior to passage
of the ordinance amendment, there was uncertainty as to what
businesses existed prior to the ordinance amendment date and what
legal mechanism could be employed to effect the grandfathering.
In order to address these issues, the Board directed the Planning
staff to undertake a study of the ROSE -4 area, identifying all
commercial uses, and ' to develop a procedure to allow
grandfathering of existing commercial uses.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The principal purpose of the staff's analysis of existing .
businesses in the ROSE -4 area was to identify the number, type,
and location of commercial uses in the study area. As part of
- = this study, the staff also attempted to determine if those uses
had valid County occupational licenses and whether the uses were
established legally in conformance with then existing zoning
requirements or prior to zoning regulations having been enacted.
In its study, the staff had initially hoped that the owners of the
existing businesses would identify themselves and that a Roseland
resident who had made statements at the ordinance amendment public
hearing as to number and location of businesses would provide
information. However, due to lack of participation, it became
necessary to utilize other resources in order to identify and
locate these businesses.
4
- M M
M W M
Study Methodology
Staff first identified the names and addresses of all property
owners within the district boundaries, the type of dwelling unit
(single-family, mobile home) on the site, and the date when the
unit was first established on the site. A print-out of all
occupational licenses issued in the County was then obtained in
order to attempt to locate.businesses. These print-outs were then
examined to determine what licensed businesses exist in this area.
Staff also performed a visual survey of the district to attempt to
locate the site of apparent businesses, those which may not have
County occupational licenses. For each identified commercial use
in the study area, staff determined the date when the residential
use on the site commenced and the zoning district which was in
place on the site when it was developed. This enabled staff to
determine whether a home occupation, the nature of .which could be
determined, was lawfully established as a permitted home
occupation at that time.
Study Results
During the ROSE -4 ordinance amendment public hearing, it was
stated that 43 home occupations existed in the Rose -4 District.
However, a search of the occupational licenses revealed that only
4 licenses have been issued to addresses within the district
boundaries. A total of six businesses were visually identified,
two of which do not have occupational licenses. The types of
businesses identified through the visual survey included a
welding/ smelting shop, storage of vegetable crates and business
trucks, storage of heavy equipment, automotive repair and sales,
and blade sharpening and chainsaw repair. Those businesses
identified by visual survey, excluding the saw sharpening and
repair, were identified by the appearance of the property. The
saw shop was identified by its sign. Further verification of
these businesses was provided by Roseland residents through the
filing of complaints with the Planning Department.
Several existing businesses have been the subject of code
enforcement complaints. These complaints have ranged from storage
of possibly hazardous material to excessive noise. Not only do
some of these businesses fail to meet the home occupation criteria
of the ROSE -4 district, but because they were never approved they
do not meet setback, screening, parking, sanitary, and other
requirements.
Grandfathering Issues
As per the Board's directive, -the staff has investigated
mechanisms wereby existing businesses could be legally recognized
as grandfathered businesses. However, a major problem arises in
the identification of businesses currently operating within the
boundaries of the Rose -4 area. If as indicated at the public
hearing, 43 businesses exist in the ROSE -4 area, the staff has
been unable to identify them and therefore, could not grandfather
them. Another issue is whether the County should grandfather a
business which has been operating without an occupational license
which is required by County law.
Several other issues arise regarding grandfathering of existing
businesses. The major issue is whether such businesses will be
considered non -conformities if they do not comply with the ROSE -4
home occupation criteria. If such establishments are classified
as non -conformities, they could not be enlarged or expanded
without conforming to applicable regulations. Nor could they
OCT JA 1987 BOOK 69 FAo 694
rocs 14 1987
BOOK 69 FAG. 695
rebuild after being severely damaged, destroyed, or abandoned for
more than 90 days unless they were brought into conformity with
existing ordinances. Another issue is whether grandfathered
businesses can continue to have junk and debris on the site,
illegally store material on the property, maintain any illegal
structures, and retain non -permitted signs.
Alternatives
Several alternatives exist for legalizing the existing home
occupations in the Rose -4 area. The first alternative would be to
permit all existing home occupations in existence prior to
February 24, 1987 to be grandfathered in, regardless of whether or
not these uses meet the ROSE -4 home occupation criteria. These
uses•would then be permitted to continue operation as they existed
prior to this date without compliance with the required criteria.
Alternative two would be to grandfather only those home
occupations which had a valid occupational license prior to
February 24, 1987. Any person operating a home occupation without
an occupational license would be required to conform with the
criteria of the Rose -4 and General Provisions home occupation
criteria prior to the granting of a home occupation permit. The
third alternative would be to require all home occupations,
whether -newly created or existing prior to February 24, 1987, to
comply with the requirements of the Rose -4 home occupation
criteria. A grace period of ninety days could be established for
compliance, after which the use would be referred to the Code
Enforcement Board.
Analysis
Alternative one would permit all home occupations operating within
the Rose -4 area to legitimize their operation with no required
improvements. However, the major drawback would be to verify
existence. Such verification would be difficult without any
formal documentation, and could possibly permit some occupations
not previously operating to establish themselves legally without
complying with the ordinances. Another issue is whether
grandfathered businesses could expand without complying with the
ROSE -4 criteria..
Alternative two would only grandfather those uses having valid
occupational licenses on February 24, 1987, thereby providing a
method to verify which uses were operating prior to the effective
date of the amendment. However, it would not ensure that the
established uses were in conformance with the ROSE -4- home
occupation ordinance in respect to visual compatibility,
employment of only family members, or homestead exemptions. This
would permit existing uses to legally continue operation in
nonconformance with the ordinances.
Alternative three would provide a ninety day period in which all
_ existing home occupations would be able to obtain an occupational
license. This alternative would ensure that any existing home
occupations would fully comply with all codes and ordinances and
avoid any complications which might arise in the future.
Compliance would meet the intent of the home occupation concept of
permitting specific uses to exist in a residential area while
retaining the residential nature of the area.
- M M
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt -
alternative three as a method of legalizing all existing home =_=
occupations within the Rose -4 District in order to ensure that all
existing home occupations will not adversely affect the
residential nature of the community.
Chairman Scurlock explained the procedure to be followed in
tonight's public hearing/workshop. First, staff will give the
status on this item, and after the Board has had a chance to ask
any questions they might have, the Public Hearing will be opened
and anyone wishing to be heard will be asked to come to the front
of the room and give their name and address before speaking.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he prefers to listen in the
beginning to those who represent an organized group so as to save
sometime in that others may not have to talk since their
position already has been presented. The Chairman wanted to
conclude the meeting by 9:00 o'clock A.M. if at all possible, and
if a decision cannot be made by that time, table the matter until
a further time. He felt 11 hours would be sufficient time to
address the situation.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development, gave a
brief update on the status of the ROSE -4 zoning district in
regard to home occupational uses.
Planner David Nearing recalled that on February 24, 1987,
the Board adopted Ordinance 87-22, which amended the ROSE -4
ordinance in regard to additional home occupational uses. At
7
OCT 14 1901 BOOK 69 FnUB96
OCT 14 1987 BOOK 69 FAGE 697
that time, there were several people in attendance who had
businesses in existence prior to the adoption of this ordinance,
and the Board wanted to find a method of grandfathering them in.
At that meeting it was alleged that there were 43 existing
businesses in the ROSE -4 District, but after driving through the
area, staff could identify only 6, 5 of which had home occupa-
tional licenses. Staff presented that information to the Board
at the meeting of July 21, 1987, along with several alternatives.
However, due to objections raised at that meeting about the
additional home occupation uses allowed in Ordinance 87-22, and
the discrepancy in the numbers of the existing businesses, the
Board decided to schedule this meeting in order to gain the input
of everyone concerned.
Director Keating then reviewed the alternatives as shown on
the following graph:
ALTERNATIVES
1) Grandfather all home occupations existing prior to 2124/87,
not required to meet criteria.
2) Grandfather all home occupation with valid occupational
licenses prior to 2/24/87, without meeting criteria.
3) Require all home occupations to comply with criteria whether
they existed prior to 2/24/87 or are newly created. Permit a
90 -day grace period for compliance.
4) (New) Grandfather only those businesses which can prove that
they had valid occupational licenses for the last 5 years
prior to 2/24/87.
M
8
M
M
L
O
ATTACHMENT 3
Director Keating explained that "grandfathering" would allow
the business to be considered legal now; but as a non -conforming
use, the business cannot be expanded or rebuilt in the event of
fire, wind, or water damages are over 500. Presently, the
9
OCT 14 1987 - BOOK 69 MUE 698
W M
<
<
<
�D
(D
No
res
Automatic Grandfathering
Yes
Limitted
Possibly Permitting
to be
Yes
No
No
A�
New Uses
/VO
Improperly Recognized
Yes
/ v0
Site Plan Required
No
No
Conformance with
Home
No
No
Yes
Rose -4
O
Occupation Criteria
Visually Compatible
No
No
Yes
/v a
Valid Occupational
License Required
No
Yes
Yes
e S
ATTACHMENT 3
Director Keating explained that "grandfathering" would allow
the business to be considered legal now; but as a non -conforming
use, the business cannot be expanded or rebuilt in the event of
fire, wind, or water damages are over 500. Presently, the
9
OCT 14 1987 - BOOK 69 MUE 698
OCT 14 1987 BOOK 69 FA;F 699
non -conforming provision in the ordinance does not preclude it
from being sold. It could be passed on to the family, but if the
business was abandoned for a period of 90 days, it could not be
reestablished.
Planner David Nearing showed slides of some of the existing
uses located within the ROSE -4 area, which included storage of
material for smelting of lead and making of sinkers, chain saw
sharpening, lawn mower repair, as well as storage of equipment.
Chairman Scurlock wanted to discuss the alleged 43 existing
home occupational uses, and asked staff how comfortable they felt
with the number of businesses they have identified.
Mr. Nearing noted that staff has identified 5 business that
have had occupational licenses as of June, 1987, and identified
two more businesses by driving through the area. They
understand, however, that one of those has ceased doing business
since that time.
Commissioner Eggert asked how many were identified back in
January, 1987, because alternatives #1, 2 and 4 all speak to a
date of January 24, 1987 for existing businesses.
time.
Mr. Nearing advised that at least 4 were identified at that
Commissioner Bird asked how difficult it would be for those
businesses to comply with the setback and screening requirements,
and Mr. Nearing felt, for the most part, the compliance would be
fairly substantial as some of the businesses may have non-
conforming structures located within the required area of
setbacks and a majority of them would have to provide some type
10
of buffering. In addition, they would have to submit a site
- plan.
County Attorney Vitunac announced that he has in his hand a
_ copy of a letter written by Fred Mensing, which seems to threaten
members of the Roseland Homeowners Association about personal
liability and lawsuit. He assured those present that they have
every right to speak tonight without fear of being named in a
10
lawsuit. Attorney Vitunac did not understand the fetter, and
did not know why Mr. Mensing wrote it.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. _
Ed Busch, President of the Roseland Property Owners Associ-
ation, stated that at the inception of the ROSE -4 zoning
41 district, their intent was to be fair to both residents of mobile
homes and conventional homes, and were pleased to see the ROSE -4
district and its density come into effect. They regret, however,
not having any representatives at the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting of January 24, 1987, when owners of
several businesses presented their situation, and the Board
adopted Ordinance 87-22, allowing additional home occupational
uses, and asked that all existing businesses come forward, be
identified, and obtain occupational licenses. During their
Association meetings, they have heard two sides on this issue,
and have had several people step forward, some reasonable, and
some not so reasonable. He stressed that they want to be fair in
terms of grandfathering in legal businesses, and trust the Board
will judge each of these businesses as they would if they were in
any other area of the county.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the 43 figure was fairly
accurate, and Mr. Busch advised that the Association pretty much
concurs with the number that staff has identified -- 5-8 existing
businesses. He mentioned that Frank DeJoia is preparing to speak
on this matter.
Commissioner Bird understood that the Association is willing
to have the existing businesses grandfathered in, but does not
want any new businesses allowed in the area, and Chairman
Scurlock asked for clarification on whether they want the
existing businesses or just the existing businesses that have
occupational licenses.
11
OCT 141997 Boo. 69fact 70®
UT 14,681 BOOK 69 PAGE 701
Mr. Busch felt that they are looking at those people who
have been in the ROSE -4 area and have applied for occupational
licenses -- approximately 5 businesses.
Commissioner Wheeler believed that alternative #4 would be
the closest to what the Association prefers, i.e. that they have
no objection to the businesses that have been operating legally
for quite some time prior to the establishment of the ROSE -4
District, but do object to the continuing of the ones that have
come in under the fence or the ones that may want to be there in
the future.
Commissioner Eggert asked how they felt about somebody
coming in only one year prior to the ROSE -4 District, and Mr.
Busch felt that should be up to the Board. However, they do feel
that whatever businesses are allowed to continue should be made
to comply with the requirements of the ordinance, just as any
other business would have to anywhere else in the county.
Chairman Scurlock stressed that what he keeps hearing from
people is that this is a growing area, a fine community, and a
special part of the county, and that they want to be treated just
like the rest of the county where standards have been adopted to
assure that if a transition does take place, an improvement takes
place, not a degradation. This statement was followed by much
clapping.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that there are certain home
occupational uses allowed in all residential districts of the
county, such as seamtresses, telephone services, bookkeeping
services, and that these would be allowed in the ROSE -4 district
also.
Frank DeJoia, 11625 Roseland Road, emphasized that the
Roseland Property Owners Association likes to keep up with all
zoning that affects any part of the Roseland area. Presenting a
map of the Rose -4 area showing the exact boundaries, Mr. DeJoia
stated that he believed the active industrial runs only along
Gibson Street and not on three sides as contended by some people.
12
The Association was very concerned about the decision made
January 24th that allowed a broader range of home occupations in
the ROSE -4 District than allowed in any other residential --
district in the county. If Ordinance 87-22 is allowed to stand, _ the Association feels that the ROSE -4 district will be downgraded
and become a magnet for businesses that are now allowed in
residential districts in any other part of the county. Mr.
DeJoia believed the reason why so many of the residents did not
show up at the January 24th meeting was due to staff's emphatic
recommendation not to allow any additional home occupations in
the district. Section 25-D (3) allows for non -impacting
occupations, but this could result in heavy equipment being
stored on a lot next to a well -kept home. He felt that the
grandfathering clauses are too complicated for laymen to -get
into, and trusted the County's competent staff to handle the
complexities of the issue. He believed that most people in
Roseland like the low density concept of 4 units per acre. In
conclusion, he urged the Board to rescind Ordinance 87-22, and
decide which of the existing businesses will be allowed to stand.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that during the January 24th
meeting it was suggested that there were 43 existing businesses
in that area and that many of the owners of these businesses were
afraid to come forward. It also was suggested that the figure may
be higher than 43, and that was one of the major reason why the
Board wanted to come up here and get the input of all the people
concerned.
Lena Marshall, 7655 129th Street, Roseland, wished to thank
the staff for coming with up Alternative #4, but it was pointed
out that Commissioner Wheeler came up with Alternative #4
yesterday after working with the Planning staff.
Mrs. Marshall suggested that some criteria be added to that
alternative which would require the existing businesses to clean
up as far as environmental hazards and appearances are concerned.
13
T 14 1987 BOOK .69 PAGE 702
BOOK 63 FACE 703,.
CCT 14 1997
She felt that the residents also would like some clarification on
Ordinance 87-22, because they are concerned about the service
businesses and the contractor's offices.
Patricia Duffy, 13305 Bay Street, wanted to see Section 25-D
of the Ordinance that is presently in effect for the rest of the
county apply to the Roseland area as well.
C. N. Kirrie, 12855 79th Avenue, stated that he has had a
business in the ROSE -4 area for over 20 years and has great
concern over what is going on at this meeting. He wanted to
question a couple of the comments from previous speakers. He
asked Mr. Busch if he would have people who have existing
businesses tear down down their buildings or move them to comply
with the ordinance, and Mr. Busch answered that he would like to
have the county enforce the setback requirements in the ROSE -4
area just as they would in the rest of the county.
Chairman Scurlock asked that Mr. Kirrie present what infor-
mation he had rather than cross examine people from the audience.
Mr. Kirrie realized that people want to keep the ROSE -4 area
nice and don't want businesses there, but he pointed out that one
person who is objecting to businesses being allowed in the ROSE -4
area has placed a business right next to them in a duplex devel-
opment. He considered duplexes and duplex developments as
businesses -- rental businesses -- and believed they do a certain
amount of downgrading.
Fred Mensing, 7580 129th Street, Roseland, presented a map
that was prepared from a print-out of business licenses from the
Tax Collector's, current as of 1:00 p.m. today. He stated that
the print-out identifies the addresses of the businesses, not the
type of business. The various colored pins in the map represent
existing businesses in different sections of the general Roseland
area. In the ROSE -4 area, they show 25 licensed businesses, but
he admitted that some are multiple licenses for the same
location. North of ROSE -4 to Roseland Road, there are 7 licensed
businesses, and from Roseland Road north to the river, there are
14
7 licensed businesses. By driving around the area today, they
also determined that between the railroad and 80th Avenue there
are some businesses which can be identified visibly. They could
see the business activity, but cannot find a license for it at
that address.
Chairman Scurlock asked staff what source they had used in
identifying licensed businesses, and Director Keating advised
that they also used print-outs from the Tax Collector's office,
but had tried to determine which licenses were given to people
who were operating their businesses in the ROSE -4 area, not the
licenses for businesses outside of the area that listed that
address. Director Keating stated that staff would be glad to
check from a recent printout, but pointed out that after the last
meeting when staff had asked Mr. Mensing to provide a list of the
existing businesses, they were refused.
Mr. Mensing disputed that, and explained that what he said
is that he could furnish staff with the names of people who did
not have licenses. He met with Director Keating and
Administrator Balczun to ask them to set some criteria, but to no
avail. He stressed that some of these people were reluctant to
come forward because they are afraid they would be wiped out of
business when they are discovered. Returning to the map, Mr.
Mensing pointed out the area that would be impacted if the
Commission allows some or all of the existing businesses to
continue. He believed the area of impact does not affect someone
who lives two miles away, and stressed that the residents of the
ROSE -4 area are protected by the site plan requirements in the
ROSE -4 ordinance. He further believed the costs involved in the
site plan process would deter anyone coming into the area wishing
to start a family business, and that the only ones who could
afford the site plan process were those who are there now and
needed to expand. Mr. Mensing felt it is up to the Board to
establish criteria to make people legal; set a time limit for
these people to come in to find out what the County is going to
15
BOOK 69 PAGE 704
OCT 14 1987 BOOK 69 wuE"705
require; and set a reasonable time for those people operating
businesses on property owned by an aunt, cousin, uncle or
grandfather to arrange to put that property in their name in
order to meet the Homestead Exemption requirement.
Mr. Mensing felt that grandfathering should be granted to
the people who do not have licenses, but who can prove that they
have been operating businesses there by submitting statements
from neighbors to that effect.
Commissioner Wheeler asked Mr. Mensing if what he was
recommending would tell everybody that has been operating there
illegally to fess up and come in and be legal, and Mr. Mensing
answered yes.
Commissioner Wheeler felt in that case, we would have to
offer the same thing county -wide, and that would result in no
zoning.
Chairman Scurlock explained that an allowable home
occupation is one that does not generate excessive traffic and
does not employ outside people. He asked those in attendance to
raise their hands if they have either a licensed or unlicensed
home occupation business in this area. The Chairman wanted the
record to show that approximately 6 people raised their hands,
not 43.
Mr. Kirrie felt the Chairman's question was unclear, and Mr.
Mensing asked how many in attendance have home occupational
licenses in the ROSE -4 area, and approximately 8 people raised
their hands.
Mr. Mensing and Mr. Kirrie distributed a handout composed of
correspondence between Mrs. Lena Marshall, the Roseland Property
Owners Association and the County, and pictures of the various
trucks and equipment being stored on sites, along with a picture
identifying a business with a sign out front.
Commissioner Bird asked Mr. Kirrie the purpose of the
handout because it seemed to him that it was something the
Association would hand out.
16
Mr. Kirrie stated that most of the objection to these
businesses is from Mrs. Marshall, and he and Mr. Mensing feel
that the letters in the handout make you think that the Associ-
ation concurs with her complaint.
Chairman Scurlock emphasized that the letters from people in
the Association had not generated this meeting; it was the
discrepancy in the number of existing business that were claimed
to be in the area.
Mr. Kirrie argued that most of the people who came here
tonight are already licensed and the ones that are not will not
stand up and identify themselves. He urged the Board to make
these businesses legal since he felt to grandfather them in these
was like a kiss of death, because if the business suffered more
than 50% from fire damage, they would not be able to rebuild
there, and would have to locate somewhere else.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that anyone has the right to
insure his property to the extent that he will have money to
rebuild his business somewhere else if fire damages are more than
50%.
Mr. Kirrie felt that was not acceptable, because when you
need to make an improvement, banks just laugh when you come in
for a loan and say your business is grandfathered in.
Margaret Hearndon, resident in the ROSE -4 area, stated that
she and her husband have a licensed business in Roseland, but not
in the ROSE -4 area. They have a grove maintenance business and
keep their equipment in the grove, not at their home. They feel
that anyone that has been there for 5 years should be allowed to
stay, and they would not like to see them have to tear down their
buildings. She also wanted ROSE -4 to be treated the same as any
other area in the county.
Elaine Johnson, resident of Bay Street in Roseland, urged
the Commissioners to treat Roseland just as they would the rest
of the county under Section 25-D of the Ordinance and not make
any exceptions.
7t eoox f �9 ,�f�c 7
� 197 � Q�
OCT 1
OCT 141987 i : > BOOL( 69 : FacE 7.0 .
Christopher Kirrie wished to be able to continue in his
father's family business while living in the same area, and have
the ability to expand the business. He asked how many of the
people in attendance actually live in the ROSE -4 area, and about
one half of the audience raised their hands.
Director Keating explained that if Alternative #4 is chosen,
Mr. Kirrie's business would be allowed to remain, and he would
not have to comply with additional site plan requirements;
however, he would be held to the same nuisance, junk, and outside
storage restrictions as anyone else in the county. The business
would be transferrable, as ownership is not a criterion of
non -conformity. He would not be allowed to expand the business
with additional structures or hire additional outside employees.
Mr. Busch wanted to reply to Mr. Kirrie's statement that the
Association endorsed Mrs. Marshall's complaint, but Chairman
Scurlock emphasized that the Board did not want to listen to any
debate between Mr. Kirrie and the Association about whether or
not the Association had endorsed Mrs. Marshall's complaint,
because that is not the issue here. He repeated that this
meeting is being held tonight to get the input of all of the
people in the area regarding home occupational uses.
Nancy Waters, 7950 128th Street, noted that no one forced
her to buy her property 11 years ago. She knew what was there
then, and does not have any trouble about what is there now.
Being a widow, she can always count on her neighbors for help and
felt the existing businesses should be allowed to continue. She
believed the pictures taken by staff of the existing business in
0
the area is an invasion of privacy.
John Edmonds, 11155 Roseland Road, felt that Ordinance 87-22
- is offensive in allowing special categories, which include
- metalworking and casting, and permits special service areas and
signage._ As he understood it, there are no restrictions in
these categories or they are considerably reduced. He believed
that industrial uses should not be allowed in this area.
18
a
The hour of 9:00 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Chairman
declared the Public Hearing closed.
Commissioner Wheeler understood that if the Board adopted
either Alternative #3 or Alternative #4, Mr. Kirrie would have to
come in compliance with setbacks and all the restrictions under
Ordinance 87-22, and Director Keating confirmed that to be so.
Commissioner Wheeler felt that the grandfather clause under
Ordinance 87-22 would be better from the standpoint that Mr.
Kirrie would not have to come into compliance; he could exist as
he is, and hope that a tornado, fire, or flood does not wipe him
out. However, he has the ability to insure against that.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board adopt Alternative
#4, which provides for the grandfathering in of those
businesses that have legally existed and been operating
in good faith for 5 years prior to January 24, 1987,
and that Ordinance 87-22 be rescinded.
Chairman Scurlock questioned the 5 -year requirement, and
Commissioner Wheeler felt there were many businesses that were up
there considerably longer than 5 years that had occupational
licenses and have been operating in good faith, and he had a
problem with giving someone a wash who was doing business there
or operating anything illegally, regardless of how many years
they were there.
Chairman Scurlock stated he would support the Motion.
Director Keating advised that most of Ordinance 87-22 is
fine; it is just the home occupation section that needs to be
amended.
Commissioner Bird asked what staff's objection is to
rescinding Ordinance 87-22, and Director Keating stated that he
was in error when he referred to Ordinance 87-22; he meant that
most of the ROSE -4 ordinance is fine.
19
�� 4.�9�� BOOK 69 PAGE
Fr__
►OCT 14 1987 BOOK 69 PAGE 09
Commissioner Bird then understood that there would not be
any problem in rescinding Ordinance 87-22. This statement was
followed by much clapping from those in the audience.
Commissioner Bird was concerned about Mr. Kirrie's buildings
and wondered if the effect of the Motion is that Mr. Kirrie would
have to go in and remove portions of his buildings, and Director
Keating assured him that Mr. Kirrie is all right as he is.
Commissioner Bird asked for clarification on how the
existing buinesses would prove that they had valid home
occupational licenses for the past 5 years, and it was pointed
out that the Tax Collector would have records showing that:
Attorney Vitunac noted that to continue to exist, Mr. Kirrie
has to exist in a non -nuisance manner, which means he cannot have
junk all over the place. He has to clean it up and operate the
business the same as any other business of that type.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the Motion tonight must be to
direct staff to go ahead and draft the appropriate amendments in
the ROSE -4 ordinance which would reflect the change that would
grandfather only those businesses which can prove that they have
had valid occupational licenses for the last 5 years prior to
February 24, 2987, except for those home businesses which
normally can operate under Section 25-D of the ordinance.
Commissioners Wheeler and Eggert agreed to the rewording of
their Motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
The Chairman announced that another public hearing will take
place and that it would be properly advertised in advance.
20
w
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 9:05 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST;
V
LP)- La
Clerk
Chairman
21 BOOK 69 FADE