03/08/22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Commissioner VanScoy stated that the verbiage in the case states that it is okay to run a business in the pole barn. He asked if a residence is considered the property or whether there is a difference between the home and pole barn. Senior Planner Anderson replied that the City Code regulations would allow for home occupation to occur in a residence and/or accessory building. He stated that the permit itself would look at the proposal and then specify where the home occupation would be conducted on the property. He assumed that the permit was drafted specific to the home because that was how the initial proposal came forward. He noted that since that time an accessory building was added and operations were shifted to that building, which would be in conflict with the previously issued permit. Mr. Trout referenced the claim that gunshots were heard in the area and noted that did not come from his property. He stated that they have never fired weapons on the property and all testing is done offsite. Commissioner VanScoy stated that many of the concerns seem to result from excessive parking and asked if that was related to business activity. Mr. Trout replied that when they first moved to the driveway, they did not have a large driveway and therefore friends visiting their home, unrelated to the business, would park on the road. He stated that they have since received the permit to expand the driveway and if they held a class, vehicles would be parked on the driveway. Mrs. Schmidt stated that she pulled the original permit request which included the requirements and conditions. She reviewed the requirements and conditions listed which she believed were violated. She stated that the permit states that he must reside at the property to operate his business, regardless of whether he is away from the home on active duty. She stated that if he is away on active duty, he should not be operating the permit. She stated that she is not complaining about the safety of the building. She noted that now the residents are aware of the business and want to stop the new request and request that the original permit also be revoked. Chairperson Bauer commented that the applicant had a permit to operate his business under the conditions listed. He stated that the applicant was in violation of that and has since submitted a new application for consideration. He stated that if the permit is denied, the original permit would remain in place and Mr. Trout could operate under those conditions. Mr. Schmidt stated that he is a witness that weapons have been fired on the applicant's property more than once. He commented that when the incidents occurring there were no other people around and believed the firing of the weapon came from inside the pole barn. Commissioner Peters asked if the resident called the police. Mr. Schmidt replied that he did not. Commissioner Peters asked why the resident did not phone the police. Mr. Schmidt stated that he is not aware of what the deal is at the property.