County in need of ‘election systems technicians’
The Brown County Election Board needs to find one Republican and one Democrat to deliver and troubleshoot voting machines for the primary and general election seasons this year.
The two men who had been the “election systems technicians” for many years, Dan Huesman and Randy Taggart, decided not to continue this year.
This is a paid job: $850 for primary season and $850 for general election season. Each commitment will be multiple days: May 3-6 and Nov. 1-4.
“Brown County will be receiving all new voting equipment this year, so the candidates should be comfortable with electronics, be able to lift 50 pounds, learn quickly and be flexible with their schedules,” writes Kathy Smith, secretary of the election board. They will need to attend equipment training with the vendors of those systems and one night of poll worker training.
The election systems technicians will need to be able to transport equipment out to polling locations and complete other transportation needs as specified by the election board, the job description says.
Candidates for this job cannot have “a family member by any relation” on this year’s ballots. They also must be registered voters of Brown County.
To apply, submit a letter of interest to the Brown County clerk’s office by 4 p.m. Monday, March 2. The address is P.O. Box 85, Nashville, IN 47448.
County’s home-based business rules under review
The Brown County Area Plan Commission wants to hear public comments at its next meeting on Feb. 25 about the county’s “home occupation” ordinance, the rules that govern home-based businesses.
The board has spent multiple hours at the December and January meetings discussing changes to these rules. That workshopping will continue at the meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 25 starting at 6 p.m. at the County Office Building in Nashville.
Right now, some businesses that operate in residential neighborhoods need $15 “home occupation” permits, some don’t, and some need a “special exception” instead.
At the December meeting, board members bought up questions about how the ordinance affects contractors or other businesses that involve trucks or heavy equipment entering and leaving a residential area. The planning office hasn’t traditionally considered contractors to be governed under the “home occupation” rules, but board members pointed out that the ordinance could be read that way.
The intent of the home occupation ordinance is to allow a person to operate a business out of his or her home that doesn’t change the residential nature of the neighborhood.
The proposed new definition for “home occupation” was “an accessory use of a dwelling unit for a business, profession, trade or vocation conducted within an enclosed dwelling, which is clearly incidental and secondary to residential occupancy and does not change the residential character thereof.” The rules also allow a home occupation to be operated “in an accessory building thereto which is normally associated with a residential use.”
The current rules stipulate that “except for articles produced on the premises, no stock in trade shall be displayed or sold on the premises.” “Stock in trade” refers to the materials a person uses in their business.
The current rules also prohibit the “outdoor display of goods or outside storage of equipment or materials used in or associated with the home occupation.”
Commission member Carol Bowden suggested that it read “no visible display” of these goods, but then members debated what that would mean — no visible from a public road, or by a neighbor on the back side of that property? Eventually, they decided not to add “visible” to that rule.
Members also talked about requiring home-based businesses that invite the public in — even for a short time — to get a permit. It costs $15 for a year. This would including artists on the annual studio tour.
The purpose would be to make sure that the public is going to a safe environment, said commission member Deborah Bartes. To get the permit, the business or artist studio would need to be visited by the planning office.
The group also talked about adding “indoor small-scale manufacturing facility” to the list of business types that need to get a special exception instead of just a $15 permit. However, they had trouble coming to consensus on the wording. The types of businesses they were envisioning to be covered by this term would be furniture making, sceenprinting or 3D printing.
However, there is no definition for “small-scale manufacturing” or even “manufacturing” in the current zoning ordinance, so members spent quite a bit of time debating what that definition should be, or whether it should just be called “light industrial” instead — a term that does have a definition in the zoning ordinance. But some members didn’t like the idea of allowing anything that could be called “industrial” in a residential area, even if it wasn’t the traditional idea of “industrial.”
They decided to table further discussion until the February meeting.
The rules in their current draft form (reflecting the discussion at the January meeting) are posted below.
[embeddoc url=”http://www.bcdemocrat.com/wp-content/files/sites/3/2020/02/Home-Occupation-Working-Draft.pdf” download=”all”]
