Agenda - 12-17-1996 - 9b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

r 2 activity. For example, a festival held at a park, a reception or picnic held on church grounds, or a veterinary clinic conducted outside an animal hospital, would be considered accessory uses to the principal use on the site and would not require approval of a Special Use Permit. This item was presented at the August 26, 1996 public hearing as a request by'Paul and Patricia Tripodi, owners of a catering business, who proposed to host wedding receptions on their residential property located on Dairyland Road. The amendment was previously prepared by the Planning Staff to be presented for public hearing on February 28, 1996. There were concerns raised by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners as to how such events would be defined, to assure that events such as horse shows, and church and civic events would not become subject to Special Use Permit approval. Due to the concerns raised, the Board of Commissioners did not include the item on the February public hearing agenda. The Tripodis paid applicable fees and requested that the amendment be presented at the August public hearing. The request did not include any suggested changes to address the concerns which had been previously raised, and thus the text which was presented at the August public hearing was the same as that which was originally proposed The Ordinance Review Committee reviewed the proposal on July 3, and suggested addressing some of the concerns by explicitly excluding events which did not meet a specified threshold of people present at any given time during the event, events of a personal nature, (such as family reunions or large parties), and events of an institutional non-profit nature (such as church or civic activities). 8/16/96 Public Hearing Comments Four citizens, including the two applicants, spoke with regard to the proposed amendment. Each of the speakers supported the amendment to the extent that it would allow the specific use proposed by the applicants. The applicants suggested that the amendment be revised to exclude larger events that could have a greater impact on surrounding areas. On September 17, the Planning Staff received revisions proposed by the applicant (attached). The revisions included the following substantive changes: