Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br /> <br />There were none. <br /> <br />6. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> <br />a. UP-94-09. Connie Harris <br />Application for a non-exempt home occupation permit to operate an in-home electrolysis <br />service with a maximum of five clients per day to be located at 4787 Canary Drive. <br />Zoning for the property is R-1-6500 District. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report for Case UP-94-09, recommending denial of this <br />application. Staff feels an in-home electrolysis business does not meet the requirements for <br />non-exempt home occupations. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br /> <br />Connie Harris, 4787 Canary Drive, represented her application for a non-exempt home <br />occupation permit to operate an electrolysis business in her home. Ms. Harris stated <br />electrolysis is licensed by the State of California Cosmetology Board; however, it is not <br />necessarily a cosmetology classification. <br /> <br />Ms. Harris feels there is adequate space in her home to conduct this business. However, she <br />does not need to use two rooms if that is a concern for the Commission. She stated there are <br />only approximately eight electrologists in the Tri-Valley, some operating successful in-home <br />businesses in Dublin and Livermore. The applicant described how electrolysis is performed, <br />noting that the equipment used precludes her from being able to transport it readily to her <br />clients' homes. Ms. Harris stated she does not want to do anything detrimental to her <br />neighbors and her neighborhood. <br /> <br />Ms. Harris stated this business is an extension of her cosmetology and electrolysis business <br />conducted in a hair design studio. The home business would be a temporary situation <br />enabling her to build her clientele to sustain a full-time storefront business. <br /> <br />In conclusion, Ms. Harris pointed out the staff report finding indicating the business would <br />not be disruptive to the neighborhood, her belief that electrolysis does comply with all <br />Chapter 18 requirements, and her business would not be detrimental to public health and <br />safety. Ms. Harris agrees to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B if the Commission <br />grants her application. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright inquired if it would be detrimental to condition the permit for a two <br />year period. Ms. Harris thought it would not be detrimental. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />March 23, 1994 <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br />