City Council Packet - Cornelius

CITY OF CORNELIUS 

CORNELIUS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 

Monday, September 17, 2012 

Council Chambers 1310 N. Adair St. 

Cornelius, OR 97113 

Agenda 

7:00 PM Call to Order – Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call Mayor Jef Dalin 

1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA 

2. CONSENT AGENDA-NONE 

A. Resolution No. 2012-22: Authorizing the City to Apply for CDBG Grant Funding for North 

11 th Avenue Pedestrian 

B. Resolution No. 2012-23: Authorizing the City to Apply for CDBG Grant Funding for Forest 

Hills Storm Bypass 

Items under the Consent Agenda are considered routine and all will be adopted with a motion, without separate discussion. 

Council members who wish to remove an item from the Consent Agenda may do so prior to the motion to approve the 

items(s). Any item(s) removed from the Consent Agenda will be discussed and acted upon following the approval of the 

Consent Agenda item(s). 

3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION – ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 

Please sign a citizen participation card and turn it in to the staff table along with any written testimony. Please wait to be 

called up to the microphone. Please keep comments to three (3) minutes or less. Please stay on topic and do not repeat 

information. Please honor the process; i.e.: do not carry on conversations while others are speaking. 

4. APPOINTMENTS-NONE 

5. PRESENTATION-NONE 

Cornelius City Council 

Agenda-September 17, 2012 Page 1 of 2

6. PUBLIC HEARING 

A. Continuation-Appeal of Planning Commission decision that affirmed the Community 

Development Directors Interpretation, CDI-01-12 and denied the appeal (AP-01-12), 

denying horse stable, equestrian and residential use. 

7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS-NONE 

8. NEW BUSINESS-NONE 

9. REPORTS 

A. City Council Report: 

Council President Heinrich 

Councilor Orozco 

Councilor Crowder 

Councilor Schamp 

B. Mayors Report: 

C. City Manager Report: 

10. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS 

A. September 19, 2012-City Hall Week, Hillsboro Civic Center, 6:30 pm 

B. September 20, 2012-Joseph Gale School Dedication & Tour, Forest Grove, 6:30-8 pm 

C. October 1, 2012-City Council Meeting, 7:00 pm 

11. ADJOURNMENT 

Cornelius City Council 

Agenda-September 17, 2012 Page 2 of 2

AGENDA REPORT 

September 17, 2012 

To: 

From: 

Through: 

Subject: 

The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Cornelius City Council 

Terry Keyes, City Engineer 

Mark Crowell, Public Works Director and 

Rob Drake, City Manager 

Approval of Grant Application for North 11 th Avenue Pedestrian Improvements 

Date: September 4, 2012 

Summary: The City is applying for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to 

complete pedestrian improvements on the west side of North 11 th between Adair and Baseline. CDBG 

applications require Council approval before they are considered for funding by Washington County. 

Previous Council Action: Council approved the Main Street District Plan in 2002 which defined the 

street improvements, including improvements to this section of North 11 th . 

Background/Problem Discussion: With Baseline and 10 th now under design, the only portion of the 

street network in the downtown core that remains unimproved is the west half of North 11 th between 

Adair and Baseline. City staff proposes to apply for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for 

design and reconstruction of this portion of North11 th . 

Alternatives/Financial Implications: Based on preliminary plans, project costs are estimated to be 

$192,000. The construction and survey costs of $172,000 will be covered by CDBG funding. In-house 

staff costs for design, bidding, and construction management ($20,000) will be the City’s in-kind 

contribution to the project. All in-house staff needs will be met with existing staff. 

Advisory Committee Vote (if needed): The Public Works Advisory Board (PWAB) did not meet in 

August and thus could not make a recommendation on this proposal. However, the PWAB recommended 

this project for funding in the past and the project is contained on the City’s latest Capital Improvements 

Plan which the PWAB approved. 

Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2012-22, authorizing the City of Cornelius to apply for 

CDBG funding for the North 11 th Avenue Pedestrian Improvements and authorizing the City Engineer to 

sign the application. 

Proposed Motion: Approved through the adoption of the consent agenda. 

Exhibit: Resolution No. 2012-22

RESOLUTION NO. 2012-22 

A RESOLUTION OF THE CORNELIUS CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CORNELIUS 

TO APPLY FOR CDBG FUNDING FOR NORTH 11 TH AVENUE PEDESTRIAN 

IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO SIGN THE APPLICATION 

FINDINGS: The Washington County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) office is 

accepting applications for grant funding for 2013-14. 

The City of Cornelius desires to participate in this grant program to the greatest extent 

possible in order to design and construct pedestrian improvements to the west side of 11 th Avenue 

between Adair and Baseline. 

Improvements to 11 th will conform to the Cornelius Main Street design standard and are 

estimated to cost approximately $192,000. $20,000 of this total will be in-kind match generated by 

city engineering staff devoted to designing, bidding, and managing construction of the project. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cornelius City Council that, 

Section 1. 

Section 2. 

The City of Cornelius is hereby authorized to apply for a CDBG funding of 

approximately $192,000 for the 11 th Avenue Pedestrian Improvements and the City 

Engineer is authorized to sign the grant application. 

This resolution is effective immediately upon its enactment by the City Council. 

PRESENTED AND PASSED this day of September, 2012. 

City of Cornelius, Oregon 

Attest: 

By: 

Jeffrey C. Dalin, Mayor 

By: 

Debby Roth, MMC, City Recorder-Treasurer 

City of Cornelius 

Resolution No. 2012-22 11 th Ave CDBG Application

AGENDA REPORT 

September 17, 2012 

To: 

From: 

Through: 

Subject: 

The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Cornelius City Council 

Terry Keyes, City Engineer 

Mark Crowell, Public Works Director and 


Approval of Grant Application for Forest Hills Storm Bypass 

Date: September 4, 2012 

Summary: The City is applying for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to replace 

a storm sewer that flows under the Forest Hills Mobile Home Park. CDBG applications require Council 

approval before they are considered for funding by Washington County. 

Previous Council Action None 

Background/Problem Discussion: 30 feet under the Forest Hills Mobile Home Park is a 36” storm 

sewer. This storm sewer was installed a number of years ago with neither city approval nor public storm 

easements. The storm sewer drains the industrial park between North 10 th and North 13 th near North 

Fremont Street and a small area of the adjacent residential area. 

In 2009 or 2010, this storm sewer became clogged and caused flooding in the industrial park. Only 

through the assistance of Clean Water Services and their more powerful equipment, was staff able to 

reopen this sewer. This project will replace this storm drain with a new storm sewer generally following 

existing public right-of-way to the east. 

Alternatives/Financial Implications: Based on conceptual plans, project costs are estimated to be 

$210,000. The construction and survey costs of $190,000 will be covered by the CDBG. In-house staff 

costs for design, bidding, and construction management ($20,000) will be the City’s in-kind contribution 

to the project. All in-house staff needs will be covered with existing staff. 

Advisory Committee Vote (if needed): The Public Works Advisory Board (PWAB) did not meet in 

August and thus could not make a recommendation on this proposal. However, the PWAB has 

recommended this project for funding in the past and the project is contained on the City’s latest Capital 

Improvements Plan which the PWAB approved. 

Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2012-23, authorizing the City of Cornelius to apply for 

CDBG funding for the Forest Hills Storm Bypass and authorizing the City Engineer to sign the 

application. 

Proposed Motion: Approved through the adoption of the consent agenda. 

Exhibit: Resolution No. 2012-23

RESOLUTION NO. 2012-23 

A RESOLUTION OF THE CORNELIUS CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF 

CORNELIUS TO APPLY FOR CDBG FUNDING FOR THE FOREST HILLS STORM BYPASS 

AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO SIGN THE APPLICATION 

FINDINGS: The Washington County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) office 

is accepting applications for grant funding for 2013-14. 

The City of Cornelius desires to participate in this grant program to the greatest extent 

possible in order to design and construct a new storm sewer to replace the existing storm sewer under 

the Forest Hills Mobile Home Park. 

This project is estimated to cost approximately $210,000. $20,000 of this total will be in-kind 

match generated by City engineering staff devoted to designing, bidding, and managing construction 

of the project. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cornelius City Council that, 

Section 1. 

Section 2. 

The City of Cornelius is hereby authorized to apply for a CDBG funding of 

approximately $210,000 for the Forest Hills Storm Bypass and the City Engineer is 

authorized to sign the grant application. 

This resolution is effective immediately upon its enactment by the City Council. 

PRESENTED AND PASSED this day of September, 2012. 

City of Cornelius, Oregon 

Attest: 

By: 

Jeffrey C. Dalin, Mayor 

By: 

Debby Roth, MMC, City Recorder-Treasurer 

City of Cornelius 

Resolution No. 2012-23 Forest Hills Storm Bypass CDBG Application

City of Cornelius Agenda Report 

To: 

From: 


Dick Reynolds, Planning Manager 

Date: August 6, 2012 

Re: 

Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (AP-01-12) 

Summary: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 26 and July 3, 2012 to review and 

deliberate on an appeal of a Community Development Director’s Interpretation Decision, CDI-01-12 that 

denied horse stable, equestrian and residential use at 1085 S. Flax Plant Rd. The Planning Commission 

affirmed the Director’s decision and denied the appeal. The appellant has appealed the Planning 

Commission decision to the City Council. 

Previous Council Action: None. 

Background/Problem Discussion: Horse stables, equestrian uses are not permitted in the City. The 

subject property was annexed into the City in 1980 as a commercial horse stable with an existing horse 

barn, arena and mobile home on the site. The use was considered nonconforming upon annexation and 

could be continued as long as it was not altered/changed or discontinued for a period of one year. In 

either case it would then need to conform to the current City Zoning Code for permitted uses. The 

Community Development Director’s Interpretation Decision (CDI-01-12) found that from January 2010 

through July 2011 that the commercial horse stable, equestrian use and caretaker residential use had 

ceased for a period of 18 months. Therefore, the nonconforming use had been discontinued for a period 

of over one year and was no longer legal and valid. The applicant appealed the decision to the Planning 

Commission. The Planning Commission affirmed the Director’s decision (CDI-01-12) and denied the 

appeal (AP-01-12). The appellant has appealed to the City Council. 

Alternatives/Financial Implications: N/A 

Advisory Committee Recommendation (if needed): The Planning Commission affirmed the 

Director’s decision (CDI-01-12) and denied the appeal (AP-01-12). 

Recommendation: Staff recommends Council affirm the Planning Commission decision and deny the 

appeal. 

Proposed Motion: I move that the Appeal of Planning Commission decision that affirmed the 

Community Development Directors Interpretation, CDI-01-12 and denied the appeal (AP-02-12), 

denying horse stable, equestrian and residential use, be affirmed and the appeal denied, based on 

the facts, findings and conclusions in the record, the staff report and public testimony 

presented at this hearing.


PLANNING COMMISSION 

Tuesday, June 26, 2012 

City Council Chambers 

1310 N Adair 


Planning Commissioners Present: Vice Chair Amy Sheckla-Cox, Commissioners Bill Bash, Bob Ferrie 

Jr., Griff Hansen and Mark Starrett 

Planning Commissioners Absent: Chair Sheila Griffie 

Staff Present: Planning Manager Dick Reynolds 

Vice Chair Amy Sheckla-Cox called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 

[Verbatim Transcript—Audio recording begins] 

Male Speaker: Okay. 

Vice Chair Amy Sheckla-Cox: We’re all set? 

Male Speaker: Yes. You’re on. 

A. WELCOME 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: So now, we are officially welcoming everybody this evening. 

B. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES for January 24, 2012. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Tonight, we've got an approval of the Planning Commission minutes from 

January 24 th , 2012. Do I have a motion from the Commission to approve that? 

Commissioner Mark Starrett: I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes as read. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, I have a motion. 

Commissioner Bob Ferrie, Jr.: I second. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: And a second. All those in favor, and please say aye. 

[Unanimous affirmative response.] 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Passed unanimously. 

Phone 503.357.3011 Fax 503.357.3424 

1355 North Barlow Street 

Cornelius, OR 97113

C. PUBLIC HEARING 

1. APPEAL: Appeal of the Community Development Directors Interpretation CDI-01-12, Denying 

Horse Stable, Equestrian and Residential Use at 1085 S. Flax Plant Rd., (Map # 

1S304DC, Tax Lot # 4600), File No. AP-01-12 

APPELLANT: Ivan Orozco, 1163 32 nd Place, Forest Grove, OR 97116 

LOCATION: 1085 S Flax Plant Rd, Cornelius, OR 97113 

CRITERIA: 

Chapter 18.05.010 through 18.05.090 (Introduction & General Provisions) 

Chapter 18.55 (General Industrial Zone, (M-1)) 

Chapter 18.135 (Non-Conforming Uses) 

Chapter 18.140 (Community Development Director’s Interpretation) 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Next on the order is public hearing for the following the land use appeal, AP-01- 

12. Appeal of the Community Development Directors Interpretation CDI-01-12, Denying Horse Stable, 

Equestrian and Residential Use at 1085 South Flax Plant Road but will be conducted in the following 

manner. A) I will open the hearing; B) Staff support will be presented with allowances for questions from 

the Commission; C) Testimony but will be heard from proponents of the appeal; D) The testimony will be 

heard from opponents of the appeal; E) General questions will be heard from the audience, if any, regarding 

the proposed action or criteria; and F) I will close the public portion of the hearing, and the Commission 

will deliberate the testimony and evidence presented. The Commission will formulate findings and 

conclusions, and take final action by specific motion and vote. The motion will be approved or denied by a 

majority vote of those present. 

Testimony may be an oral or in writing. It must specifically address the applicable criteria set forth in the 

notice or other plan or Code criteria you believe applies to the decision in order for it to be considered in the 

final decision. If you have any exhibits you want the Commission to consider, please hand the exhibit to the 

Planning Staff to mark as part of the record. The City Planning Staff will keep the exhibits until appeal 

opportunities expire. At such time, you may request the City Planning Staff return your exhibits. Failure to 

raise an issue in the hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to be specific enough to afford the 

Commission and all participants an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude any right of appeal to 

the City Council. Failure to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval 

with sufficient specificity to allow the local government or its designee to respond to the issue precludes an 

action for damages in circuit court. 

Unless the Commission continues the hearing, any participant has the right to request that the record be 

held open for at least seven days in order to allow response to new issues or evidence raised during the 

hearing. Before the start of the hearing on each item, I will ask all Commission members whether they have 

any potential conflicts with regard to the land in question. If a potential conflict exists, I will ask whether 

the Commission member in question believes he or she is without actual bias, or whether he or she would 

like to step down from the Commission during the case. Any member of the audience may challenge the 

right of the Commission member to hear the matter before it for reason of conflict of interest, bias, or ex 

parte contact. 

Proposed action AP-01-12, Appeal of the Community Development Directors Interpretation CDI-01-12, 

Denying Horse Stable, Equestrian and Residential Use at 1085 South Flax Plant Road: applicable 

regulations include Chapter 18.05.010 through 18.05.090, Introduction and General Provisions; and 

Chapter 18.55, General Industrial M-1; Chapter 18.135, Nonconforming Uses; and Chapter 18.140, 

Community Development Director's Interpretation. 

I will now open the public hearing. Have any members of the Commission had any ex parte contacts with 

respect to this application? 

[Multiple negative responses heard.] 

R:\Board and Commissions\Planning Commission\CPC June 26 2012 Verbatim Transcript.doc

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: None. Have any Commission members conducted a site visit? 


Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, there's none. Do any members of the Commission have any potential 

conflicts with regard to the proposed action? 


Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, there are no issues or conflicts. So, at this time, Staff, do you— 

Male Speaker: [#1 5:23] You need to ask the audience— 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Oh, okay. Oh, thank you. So would any member of the audience like to 

challenge the right of any Commission member to hear the matter before them for reason of conflict of 

interest, bias, or ex parte contact? 

[No response heard.] 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, seeing none, now the Staff can present the report. 

Planning Manager Dick Reynolds: Thank you, members of the Planning Commission. Dick Reynolds, 

Planning Manager, here to present the Findings Report for appeal number AP-01-12. I'd like to enter into 

the Findings Report into the record at this time. You've identified the actual sections of the Code that are 

applicable to this request and review. And the location as you've mentioned is 1085 South Flax Plant Road, 

and you'll notice the map and tax lot number is TS1R3W4DC, Tax Lot 4600. It's located in the General 

Industrial (M-1) Zone. The Appellant is Ivan Orozco, and the property owner is Terry Emmert. 

I'd like to start out first of all by—before I get into the Findings Report specifically, kind of framing this 

issue, what we're looking at as identified in the instructions that were read [inaudible #1 6:52] 

nonconforming use issue. A nonconforming use is a pre-existing legal use that was in operation prior to 

annexing into the city, but which are now prohibited or are restricted under City Code. The situation that's 

here is that there's a commercial horse stable, equestrian arena, caretaker's residence that legally existed 

prior to annexation into the city. The City Zoning Code for the subject property is General Industrial. The 

zone does not permit equestrian or horse use currently and prohibits residential use. The Code states that if 

a nonconforming use ceases for a period over 12 months, all uses after that have to comply with the Code. I 

just wanted to point those framework issues out first. 

The property, like I mentioned, is zoned Industrial M-1, and I'll try to make this so people can see. Can you 

guys see this? 

Male Speaker: [Inaudible #1 8:09] 

Mr. Reynolds: Okay, so this is South 10 th Avenue, Flax Plant Road. The property conveniently is this area 

that's kind of brown looking. This is horse stables and the barn located on the side. This is a Google 

photograph from 2011 just as reference for where it's located at. The site's about 8 acres in size. As you can 

see, the development around it is urban in nature. We have residential to the south; residential to the west; a 

school located northwest; residential and industrial located to the north, and to the northeast, we have some 

more industrial uses. So the records that are before you indicate that when the property was annexed into 


the city, it was brought in by Royland Farms, which at that time, there was a horse arena, a barn, and a 

mobile home located on the site. So it was brought in as a commercial horse stable and arena. 

The City has documented in Exhibit 2 of your Findings Report that there was a period of 18 consecutive 

months of no commercial horse stable, equestrian, or caretaker residential use on the property. The 

Applicant at that time submitted an application for the Community Development Director to interpret— 

make an interpretation to validate equestrian use and horse stable use as a legal nonconforming use on the 

subject property. Based on that application, Staff completed the report that's identified as File number CDI- 

01-12. The application did not meet the applicable criteria for a legal nonconforming use. Based on those 

findings, the Community Development Director denied CDI-01-12 on April 27 th . The Applicant then 

submitted an appeal of that decision on May 11 th , 2012, and that's what we'll be moving forward with 

tonight. 

So there's three basic Finding sections in your report. The appeal issues are also identified in your report 

that were submitted by the Appellant, and I'd like to just briefly go through the City Findings before I get to 

the conclusion. I've broke them down in three areas. The first one is Historic Use. This is kind of a—I think 

an important portion of the Findings Report, and it goes back to 1968 when Washington County approved a 

onsite septic system and drain field for a commercial use, and that was for Apache Stables that had two 

employees on the subject site. In 1980, the property was still located in Washington County and was zoned 

exclusive farm use. The property owners at that time submitted a land use application for annexation into 

the city. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions of Ordinance 581 for the 

property to be annexed into the city. That ran into a little bit of problems in that the conditions were never 

satisfied. So that applicant, who was Milton Buehner, lived in 9480 North West Helvetia Road in Hillsboro, 

and at the time of annexation and their zone change request, they represented to the City that the use of the 

property was for equestrian use and for a horse show facility was not intended to continue. They intended to 

develop the property for industrial uses back in 1980. 

At the end of a two-year period, the Applicants failed to meet their conditions, like I said, and their zone 

change was voided. So, they came back in '84 with an application to partition the property, and they weren't 

allowed to do that because zone change wasn't recognized as valid. So in '85, the property owners 

resubmitted for a zone change application from Exclusive Farm Use to an industrial zone. At that time, the 

application stated that the property owners fully intended to develop the property with industrial uses, and 

also within that application, they stated that the subject use is a temporary pre-existing use, and that it didn't 

need to go through any further conditional use permit approval for it to be used as a—for its existing use. 

So, what I'd like to conclude, or the Finding that Staff makes about historical uses is that in the '60s and 

'70s, this property was developed as a commercial horse stable area known as Apache Stables with a 

caretaker's residence. The use of the property at the time of annexation in the city was still a commercial 

horse stable, equestrian business with a caretaker's residence operated by Royland Farms. When the City 

approved the annexation and the zone change to General Industrial, the applicant described the horse stable 

business as a temporary, pre-existing use. The applicant and property owners at that time also stated that 

they fully intended to develop the property with industrial uses. The City finds that the subject site was 

never intended to continue as a commercial horse stable or equestrian facility with a caretaker's residence. 

The property was annexed into the City for the purpose of developing the property with industrial 

businesses served by urban services. 

The second set of findings that I'd like to submit are—in the report, are about burden of proof. In the 

Development and Zoning Code in Chapter 18.135-030C, which is the nonconforming use section, it states 

that if any nonconforming use of the land ceases for any period of more than one year, any subsequent use 

of the land shall conform to the regulation specified by this title from the district in which such land is 


located. The Applicant and Appellant now have the responsibility of providing proof that the horse stable 

and equestrian residential use did not cease for a period of over a year. The City has provided 

documentation that the commercial horse stable, equestrian and residential use did cease for a period of 18 

months, and it's documented in CDI-01-12, which is Exhibit 2C of your Findings Report. The City further 

documented that city services, water and sanitary sewer, were disconnected for a period of over 12 months 

from June 2010 to August 2011 for account number 009397-001, which is one of the accounts that—meters 

that serves the property, and for four years from July 2007 to August 2011 for account 009397-000, which 

is another water meter that serves the site. 

All businesses that operate in the City are required to connect to city services. No evidence has been 

submitted by the Appellant to refute city water service being disconnected. The city water consumption 

records for the two meters that service the property document that no water was consumed at the site for 

over a 12-month period. The Applicant and owner have submitted signed statements, and an email from 

three individuals, Michele Matesi, Heidi Hulsey, and Jennifer Blake, who indicate they have used the horse 

arena at the site intermittently for a two-month period of time. There is no documentation that was 

submitted of a rental lease or other agreement that allows these individuals to operate a commercial horse 

stable or equestrian business of the site. All businesses in the City are required to have a City or Metro 

business license to operate in the city. The City has no records of business license issuance for a 

commercial horse stable or equestrian facility at the site. There have been no active business licenses issued 

to Michele Matesi, Helen Ho—excuse me, Heidi Hulsey, Jennifer Blake, or the property owner, Terry 

Emmert, for commercial horse stable or equestrian business on the property. There is no record of a 

commercial horse stable or equestrian business legally [inaudible #1 16:54] onsite. 

The timeline that is listed in the exhibit—in the Staff Report CDI-01-12, documents a period of 

approximately 18 months where a commercial equestrian horse stable and residential use were absent from 

the site. The Applicant and owner have submitted signed statements from two individuals and the email 

from a third who indicate they have used the horse arena at the site intermittently. The use that was 

recognized as a nonconforming use back in 1985 when annexation zone change was approved was for a 

commercial horse stable, and equestrian arena, and caretaker's residential use. The property has never been 

recognized as a nonconforming rural farm and/or farm dwelling use. It is only been recognized as a 

nonconforming commercial horse stable, equestrian, and caretaker's residential use. Therefore, a 

commercial horse stable, equestrian business, and caretaker's residence is the only nonconforming use 

recognized on the property. 

The last Finding pertains to nonconforming uses must remain lawful. The subject property, as I mentioned 

before, was annexed into the city in 1980 with the existing commercial horse stable, equestrian arena, and 

caretaker's residence operated by Royland Farms. The City recognized and permitted a continuation of the 

commercial horse stable, equestrian arena, and caretaker's residence operated by Royland Farms as 

nonconforming uses. Beginning in 2010, the City documented that the commercial horse stable, equestrian 

and caretaker residence use was absent from the site for a period of 18 months, and the City further 

documented that no city business license was issued for operation of a commercial horse stable or 

equestrian business on the property in the 18-month period. No consumption of potable water by City 

service as required by Oregon State Specialty Code for operation of a commercial business occurred. This 

corroborates earlier findings, in fact, that no lawful commercial horse stable, equestrian, or residential use 

existed on the property from January 2010 through July 2011. 

So, in conclusion, the Community Development Director concludes that that commercial horse stable, 

equestrian, and caretaker residential use on the subject property are not permitted uses and are not legal 

nonconforming uses based on the eleven factors here—I will read through them very quickly, 

conclusionary remarks. The horse stable and equestrian use is not permitted in the General Industrial M-1 


Zone and is prohibited by City Code. The horse stable was a commercial business in 1968. The subject 

property was annexed into the city in 1980 as an existing commercial equestrian show facility and horse 

riding area. City records document that when they exist—but when the zoning was officially changed to 

City Industrial, the property owners represented to the City that the use of the property for a commercial 

horse riding stable and caretaker residence were to be a temporary pre-existing use. The City and the 

County records document that the horse stable and equestrian uses on the site from 1968 through 

annexation and zone change approval by the City in '85 were for a commercial use and a caretaker's 

residence. They were never recognized as a rural agricultural farm dwelling use. The site must have a legal 

commercial horse stable, equestrian, and caretaker's residential use for the nonconformity to be recognized 

and valid. 

The City has documented a period of 18 consecutive months, from January 2010 through July 29, 2011, 

when commercial horse stable, equestrian, and caretaker residential use were absent from the subject 

property. The City concludes that the nonconforming commercial horse stable, equestrian, and caretaker 

residential use did not consume city water [inaudible #1 20:58] water source [inaudible #1 21:00] water 

meters that service the site; therefore, no commercial business is legally operated on the site. No City or 

Metro business licenses were applied for, were issued to the subject property during the 18-month period; 

therefore, no legal commercial horse stable or equestrian business use took place on the property from 

January 2010 through July 2011. In March of 2010, the City also documented that there were a large 

number of vehicles that were moved out to and stored onto the site. That was a dismantling and towing 

business owned by Marion Coffman of 9-11 Towing. At that time in March of 2010, he applied for a 

change of use on the site. The City concludes that the commercial horse stable and equestrian use were no 

longer in use on-site at that time. A new land use application submitted by 9-11 Towing and signed by the 

property owner was being reviewed for changing use of the property at that time. 

Tim, the Appellant, has submitted three written statements from Michele Matesi, Heidi Hulsey and Jennifer 

Blake stating that they use the horse stable occasionally to ride horses during the City's documented 18- 

month period. The City concludes that the statements made by Matesi, Hulsey, and Blake do not include 

any documentation such as City business license, new City water account, rental agreements, receipts, or 

dated photographs to verify the dates of use. Furthermore, the March 18 th event that Heidi Hulsey describes 

would be in conflict with the change of use of the auto towing, and storage and dismantling business that 

staff documented onsite. Absent additional corroborated evidence, these affidavits do not outweigh the 

substantial evidence that equestrian use of the property was discontinued for a period of 18 months. 

The appeal includes a letter dated May 10, 2012, from Robert Snee that disputes the facts relied on by the 

Community Development Director in his interpretation. Mr. Snee's letter states that the photographs, 

memos submitted by Dick Reynolds merely document that on the dates the photographs were taken, Mr. 

Reynolds did not observe any equestrian activity on the property. In the recent past, the commercial horse 

use and equestrian activity on the site has included daily pasturing of horses visible from the public rightof-way. 

The last horse stable use and equestrian activity on the site was Native Sun Equestrian, Heidi 

Hulsey, from April 2007 until January 2010. During that time, [inaudible #1 23:46] horses were observed 

during the week in the pasture right on the site. City water consumption was also documented and billed. 

The next use on the site was from March 8 through 2010 was—April 2010, Marion Coffman's 9-11 Towing 

operation used the site, and that could also be clearly visible from the public right-of-way. No horses were 

observed onsite at this time. After 9-11 Towing moved off the site, their continued to being no horse use for 

equestrian activity observed on the site from May 2010 through 2011. No City water consumption took 

place from June 2010 until August 2011. 

And finally, the City Code does not permit horse stable use, equestrian use, or residential use or all three in 

the General Industrial M-1 District. The City has demonstrated at the time of annexation into the city, the 


site was developed and used as a commercial horse stable with a caretaker's residence. The uses were 

recognized at annexation as temporary pre-existing uses, nonconforming uses. The City Code states that 

any nonconforming use of the land that ceases for a period of more than a year that any subsequent use shall 

conform to the Code. The City has provided substantial evidence that documents the commercial horse 

stable use, equestrian use, and residential use did cease for a period of 18 months, and these uses are no 

longer recognized as legal nonconforming uses. Therefore, all uses on the site must now conform to the 

City Code and the General Industrial M-1 Zone. The recommendation is based on the facts, findings, 

conclusions, exhibits, testimony, and evidence the Community Development Director recommends to the 

Planning Commission to affirm CDI-01-12 and deny the appeal, AP-01-12. Thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: All right. Thank you very much for that report. At this time, are there any 

questions from the Commission? 

Commissioner Bash: I do have one. I’d just like you to clarify one point in particular. So, if horses were in 

there, but they weren't there under a commercial use, a business use, the City rests on the fact that it has to 

be a viable commercial use, not just a private individual use for a couple of weeks, months or even years 

because there's no showing of commercial activity. Would that be correct? Am I understanding that 

correctly? 

Mr. Reynolds: Right. The use that was brought in as nonconforming was a commercial business. It was 

Apache Stables early in its—the '60s, and Royland Farms when it annexed in in 1985. Ao, that's the 

nonconforming use that was recognized, that commercial activity. So, a part of the Findings Report is that it 

was never recognized as a rural residential use, a farm use where occasional or intermittent horse activity 

might take place. This has to be a commercial business. That’s what it was built for, that was what it was 

annexed in for. That's what it was recognized at the time it was brought into the City. 

Commissioner Bash: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that I was clear on that. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Any other questions from the Commission? 

Commissioner: [#1 27:32] No. 

Commissioner: Not at this time. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. So, at this time, I guess we will open this up to anyone wishing to speak 

in favor of this appeal. Now, I have a whole bunch of slips. 

Mr. Reynolds: Yeah. Did—I don't know if they marked it. They're favoring the opposition of the— 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: That's what I'm having a hard time seeing. It just looks like a bunch of slips. 

So— 

Commissioner: [#1 28:05] Does it matter if they have to do 'em all at once, or— 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I can call a name out and see if that person's wanting to speak in favor and go 

that direction. Okay. So when I call your name, please let me know if you're speaking in favor. If you're not 

speaking in favor, we'll hold your testimony until the next round here. 

Male Speaker: [Inaudible name? # 1 28:30] for one more, here. 


Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Oh, okay. 

Male Speaker: I'd like to testify. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Thank you. So, first up is Don Semm. 

Don Semm: Not in favor. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, thank you. Miguel Serrano? 

Miguel Serrano: Not in favor. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Noemy Orozco? 

Noemy Orozco: Not in favor. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. 

Noemy Orozco: Oh, sorry. I am. I don't know. 

[Off microphone comments] 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Michele Matesi? 

Male Speaker: Amy, you might want to clarify that if they're speaking in favor of the appeal, they would 

be speaking in favor of the Appellant, not the City. 


Male Speaker: [Inaudible #1 29:22] 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Right. Does everybody understand that? 

[Multiple negative responses.] 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. So if you're speaking in favor of this appeal, you're speaking— 

Female Speaker: You want it to happen. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Yes. 

Female Speaker: Yeah. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Yes. You are speaking in favor for the Appellant, not for the City. Does that 

make sense? So does that change anybody that I've already talked to? 

Male Speaker: I couldn't hear you. 


Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. That’s alright. We'll—I'll repeat it really loud. So if you are in favor of 

this appeal, you are in favor for the Appellant, not for the City. Does that make sense? 

Male Speaker: We're in favor of the stables. We want 'em to stay. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: So that's for the Appellant. 

[Multiple affirmative responses.] 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. So, does that change anything for the people that I just called out. 

Male Speaker: Yes. 

Male Speaker: Yes, it does. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. I'm gonna go back. Don Semm? 

Don Semm: Uh, not in favor. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Miguel Serrano? 

Miguel Serrano: In favor. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Miguel, can you please come forward and say your name and address, and 

you can go ahead and give your— 

Miguel Serrano: Miguel Serrano, I'm the President of the Charros, State of Oregon. My address is 25293 S 

Newkirchner Road, Mulino, Oregon, 97042. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Thank you. 

Miguel Serrano: And this particular place, site, it help us a lot; our concession [#1 30:56]. We're over 100 

members and we're growing every year between men's team and girls' team. We help [inaudible #1 30:56] 

show kids, our sport. The main purpose to bring Charreria, which is the name of the sport, is to bring our 

town kids—to bring—to keep out of the streets, to bring this beautiful sport and tradition from Mexico. 

This sport has a potential growing for the city be cause eventually there will be competitions with other 

states, and national competitions that can bring, you know, like I say, it is potential growing for the city. So 

it's very, very important decide. The familia Orozco are helping us allow to practice our sport. And I notice 

a lot of evidence for our Charros in this county [#1 32:15] and so it's very, very important that this site 

keeps open. Thank you very much. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Thank you. Okay, so I believe Noemy Orozco? Okay, please come forward and 

state your name and address. 

Noemy Orozco: It's 2727 SE 75 th Avenue, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123. All right. And I'm in favor. I'm, like 

Miguel Serrano mentioned, I'm one of escaramuza [#1 32:50] from an escaramuza team, and as we all 

know, it rains a lot in Oregon; and it is really hard for us to practice our sport and to find a place where we 

can actually perform and continue our sport during the winter, especially because it rains most of the year 

here in Oregon. Ever since the—we've had a chance to practice here in the arena, it's been—our sport's 

become, like, alive again because we can—there's actually more escaramuza teams now because we have a 


chance to practice because we can't go out and compete at a state level when we don't practice during the 

year. This year, though, we've had a chance to practice a little more. Now we can actually—this summer 

we're going to compete in the state level, and we're going to get equal recognitions rather than other years, 

we couldn't do that because there was nowhere for us to practice, and we can't practice out in the rain with 

our horses and stuff. It is a—I don't think you guys know it, but it's a beautiful sport. It's family related, and 

like he says, it keeps us—it takes a lot of our time, so it keeps us busy and focused and stuff, rather than 

like doing other stuff. So that's my— 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Thank you very much. Okay, Michele Matesi? 

Michele Matesi: Okay, that'd be me. Hi. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: You're speaking in favor? 

Michele Matesi: Yes. 


Michele Matesi: I actually thought I was going to be here as the—I thought I was going to testify as the 

owner of the property's attorney, [#1 34:37] so I was really confused. I didn't know I was going to get up 

here and have to make a grand statement or anything, but essentially, I'm the person who submitted this 

affidavit, and of course I am in favor of the property owners dealing with as few restrictions as possible on 

the use of their property, their buildings, their structures, their land. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Can you say your name and your address for the record, please? 

Michele Matesi: Sure. 


Michele Matesi: It's Michele with one L, and then my last name is Matesi; it's M-A-T-E-S-I, and I live at 

18115 S Steamer Court in Oregon City, Oregon 97045. 


Michele Matesi: Yep, I submitted the affidavit, and he's aware, Mr. Emmert's aware of nonconforming use 

provisions in various municipalities' land use codes. He owns a significant amount of real property. He 

would not jeopardize a nonconforming use by failing to use the property for 12 months uninterrupted. So 

I'm definitely in support of him being able to continue to use the property for horses, horse boarding, horse 

riding, horse—equestrian uses, whatever they may be, or however they are characterized. I feel that he 

should be entitled to based on just the Code itself, because I don't think the City has provided any 

substantial evidence that there was a discontinuation of the use of—or equestrian-related activities for a 

period of 18 months. So, that's pretty much it. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Can we ask questions now? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Yeah, we can ask questions, can’t we, of the—those speaking? 

Male Speaker: Sure. 


Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Can you come back? We wanted to ask you a question. I'm sorry. 

Michele Matesi: Oh, sure. Of course. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Thank you. Go ahead. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: I just have a question. When you're saying that the property, or the owner 

wouldn't let the property not be used for a horse/equestrian type, is that something they can do without 

having utilities or water on the property for a period of— 

Ms. Matesi: Well, I believe water—the property is certified well, I believe, and in terms of—are you 

saying— 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Well, I'm just curious. If you're saying that the owner would never let the 

property go that long so that he'd jeopardize his conditional use permit. But the City's showing that there 

was no water on the property that was billed for a period of 18 months, and there was no utilities? 

Ms. Matesi: I understand that, yes. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: And my question is, can you take care of the horses without running water or 

utilities on the property is my question. 

Ms. Matesi: Well, you can actually—well, first of all, there's a well that serves the property, so I don't think 

it needs to be connected to the city. I don't—I think that another way to—I mean, horses, if you don't—you 

know, they have to have water every single day, but you can haul water really easily, so, you know, I 

personally don't think that the fact that city utilities weren't hooked up is, you know, of any kind of 

substantial evidence that somebody isn't using their property, but— 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay, thank you. 

Ms. Matesi: If that answers your question. Okay. Is there any other questions? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I don't think so. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Matesi: You're welcome. Thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Next, we have—I believe it's Karen, Karen Herinckx. 

Karen Herinckx: Herinckx, and I am against it. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, thank you. Ken Stone, speaking in favor? 

Ken Stone: I'm speaking the same as—I hope the equestrian center remains. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Please have—yeah, please come up to the microphone and state your 

name and your address, please, for the record. 

Mr. Stone: Kenneth Stone, Brush Prairie, WA. 



Mr. Stone: Not unlike the three people that have paperwork that shows that they use this facility, I provide 

cattle for Heidi during her equestrian events, mostly for OHSET. I also provide cattle for Ivan in 2010, 

2011 both, up until a few months ago. I do this four or five days a week. I was just at Spirit Mountain. I was 

at St. Paul before that; I go around a lot with different kinds of cattle for different uses, and the reason 

why—really, I'm not trying to be funny or criticize, but the reason why you didn't see the horses is you 

didn’t go inside because that's where they are. I mean that's where they keep them. I dump cattle out there 

on occasion and stay over the night at a motel. I always eat a steak at Mary's restaurant down the road. I 

spend a lot of money in this community, and a lot of other people who come here to this equestrian center 

do the same. I've talked to several merchants that realize this that would like to testify in favor. Have you 

any questions? My cattle are parked out there right now. I'm just passing through with a truckload, but been 

using it during this period. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Thank you very much. Next is Lori, is it Greenleaf? 

Lori Greenleaf: Greenleaf. Yes, I'm in favor of the stables. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Please come forward and state your name and address for the record 

Ms. Greenleaf: Lori Greenleaf, 1014 S Flax Plant Road, Cornelius, Oregon 97113. And I live right across 

the street from the entrance to the stables, so we see it all. And there have been horses there in the period in 

question. They didn't stay for lengths of time, but they were there. In fact, I remember getting very excited 

thinking the horses were coming back because that was one of the reasons I chose to buy that house there, 

because we were also looking at a house in Hillsboro. But the stables there, that tipped the scales toward 

buying the house that we are in on Flax Plant Road. I really would like the stables to stay there. I think that 

the people, the Orozcos [#1 40:56] that are in there right now are—in fact, everyone that has run the stables, 

Heidi and them, they have always been respectful of the neighborhood and kept the grounds up pretty well 

considering how well the weeds grow here in Oregon. I have taken my grandkids over there for their events 

and things like that, and it’s always run in a very clean, family-oriented manner. To me, Cornelius—I mean, 

we state on the signs around town that Cornelius is a family town, and if you deny a facility that has family 

events, that's kind of counter-productive to your tagline or whatever, you know, to what you consider a 

family town. Because, I mean, there's kids there. There's, you know, all—several generations there, and I 

just feel that the stable should be allowed to continue there. Any questions? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I don't think so. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Greenleaf: Okay. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Next is Heidi Hulsey, speaking in favor? 

Heidi Hulsey: Yes. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Name and address, please. 

Heidi Hulsey: Heidi Hulsey. Is PO Box, or do you need— 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: That's fine. 

Heidi Hulsey: PO Box 845, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123. So I will speak directly to the affidavit that I 

submitted. I'm assuming you've been provided that already. There are four dates on there specifically when I 


had horses onsite. One was operating a 4-H clinic. That was—wasn't large, maybe 20-30 kids that were 

there for the day. The horses that hauled in for that provided their own water and their own facility—usually 

most horse trailers have some sort of water apparatus so they can haul water in with them. The riding 

lessons happened at other times when I had events happening at our other stables, so horses were taken over 

there because there's a really nice big arena, so we used it for that. And, I coach the Glencoe Equestrian 

Team, and so there was a time there when we had—we actually—because this facility is one of the largest 

arenas in the county, we have seven high schools that practice between the two facilities, and since we have 

so many practicing before state, I moved mine over here to get extra practicing for drill team. 

To address the question you had about the water on the property, the well supplies the entire barn facility. 

The only access to the public water is for the actual residence that's onsite, the restrooms that service the 

viewing area, and then there's like a snack shack area. And that's where the public water comes into play. 

All the rest of it, all the horses, all the watering of the arena, the watering of the pastures, all that came off 

of the well. I don't believe—it's my opinion that you can't differentiate the definition of just stabling of 

horses versus the activities that come with that. I have yet to see a horse that's just stabled somewhere and 

not used or ridden to some capacity. So trying to differentiate between stabling or, a commercial stabling 

facility, that almost—it always has included people coming in to ride, people needing a facility to ride, so 

there is kind of this back and forth thing that happens there. [Inaudible #1 Pt B 17:14] And the whole point 

is being able to [inaudible 44:43] the arena or the grounds outside to ride the horses. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Any questions from the Commission? I have a question for you, so are 

you saying the house is actively using the city water at this time? 

Ms. Hulsey: I don't have knowledge to that. When we were on site, then yes, the house was actively using 

the water, but I've been gone since the 2010. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. All right, thank you. Next is Brian Metzner. 

Brian Metzner: I'm in favor. 


Mr. Metzner: My name is Brian Metzner. I'm at 1036 South Flax Plant Road right across the street, just as 

Lori is our neighbor. I've been living there for about eight years now. The only problem I've ever seen with 

that, the stables in the area was when you moved the tow truck drivers in and out. That was the worst, and I 

was happy to see them go. There has been horses onsite at pretty much all times as Heidi was saying. 

They're—you know, if they're not grazing, you can hear them in the stables themselves. So, as far as no 

horses on the property, there are very few times when I could actually say that I didn’t know they were 

there. That's about all I've got to say. 

Male Speaker: Thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, thanks. Next is Dave Schmidt. 

Dave Schmidt: Yeah, I'm Dave. I live at 1011 South Ivy. It's down two blocks away, and I've lived there 

since 1988. And the stable's always been there, and I'd hate to see them shut it down. I know there's always 

been horses there. I might not see them all the time, but over the years, I've had nieces and sister-in-laws 

have done the flag drill teams and the barrel racing, all that, and we've sat in the stadiums for years. And I 

took my kids. Now I take Kylie there and—my granddaughter—and I'd just hate to see them shut it down. I 

think it's a great place, good for the family, good for the kids. She even gets to ride the horses there now, 


so—but I think during that time that you—they—maybe they didn't—weren't as active, but I believe that 

they've at least opened it up for rental for some of them drill teams to come in and come use the covered 

areas, so I think it was still being used there. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: All right. 

Mr. Schmidt: That's about it. I just don't want to see them shut it down. 


Mr. Schmidt: I don't want to develop it and, you know, if [inaudible #1 47:19] seems like they can change 

zones and take a flood plain and put tons of houses there and stuff. I’d hate to see them change something 

else and put more buildings or more stuff. Something where families can use it and enjoy it. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Thank you for your testimony. I have—is it Claudia Lewis? 

Claudia Lewis: I'm against it. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Ivan Orozco? Sorry if I'm mispronouncing your name. 

Ivan Orozco: Good evening. My name is Ivan Orozco, and I am the Appellant, and I would love to have 

the stables there for the reason that it's the opportunity for us to work together as a family. I'm one of seven, 

and Mom and Dad are here, and we all are working together right now while we're there. The reason we 

decided to get the stables is because we have—Dad's got about 20 grandkids, and they're all under 18, and 

we would like for them to be involved in the stables rather than in front of the TV or playing video games. 

My niece was up here a little bit ago. She's part of the—one of the teams. The sport that we do as a Miguel 

Serrano was saying, President of the Charreria Association of Oregon, is family-oriented, and I think it's the 

only sport that I've seen where it involves kids and fathers to be on the same team and participate together. 

The other thing that I've seen and noticed a lot when we had events, we have a lot of people that come from 

out of state and teams that come from out of state and compete. And they spend and bring money to the 

community. And I think that's a very good deal for our city, for the City of Cornelius, and I think we've 

been really good neighbors with everybody that we've known around. And we've been trying to do and 

follow up with—like the poster that said [inaudible 49:35] building community. I think we've done really 

well on building our community here in Cornelius. Thank you. 

Male Speaker: Thank you. 


Commissioner Griff Hansen: I do have a question. So, were you operating a commercial horse stable 

without a license? 

Mr. Orozco: I wasn't aware when we got in there because it was always been used for horses. I wasn't 

aware that it had to be a commercial. We got in there and we started using it for our teams and for people to 

practice. When I did found out, I went and tried to get a permit, and it was denied. 

Commissioner Hansen: Because I feel our decision is so narrow. It's based on whether or not—I mean, it's 

not whether or not we want stables in the town, that's not something we get to decide. That's just already 

decided. We have to decide whether or not it was getting used during that time, and whether—Dick, did 


we—I don't know. I'm kind of stuck at what I'm supposed to be learning. If there's no business license, 

and—can there have been a commercial use without a business license? Who do I ask? And I'm wondering, 

you know, so without a business license—I don't know who I'm supposed to be asking, so maybe my— 

Male Speaker: [inaudible #1 51:07] let Dick take a shot at first. 

Commissioner Hansen: Please help me. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Well, I mean—yes, there needs to be a business license. I mean, I don't see any 

way around that. And I, like you— 

Commissioner Hansen: Well, I'm listen— 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: It’s not about whether we like this or not, it’s— 

Commissioner Mark Starrett: Right. It's whether or not the property had been abandoned for the period of 

the time that the City says it wasn’t being used for what it was intended for. 

Commissioner Hansen: I may agree with everybody and still not reach— 

Commissioner Bill Bash: So right now, what we're trying to do is ask questions of the individuals that are 

giving testimony and then save our discussion around what we're—questions about, after we’ve kind of 

heard, unless there's somebody who directly addresses and says, hey, I've got this commercial business 

license here. It's dated blah, blah, blah. Then we can— 

Commissioner Hansen: That's why I was asking— 

Commissioner Bash: But I think—so that's kind of where we're at, is we're just—if we feel like we need 

get clarification from an individual, then we can do that. 

Chad Jacobs, City Attorney's Office: And, if I could just clarify for the Commission and for the public— 

this is Chad Jacobs from the City Attorney's Office—you have the criteria set forth in front of you that's in 

the Staff Report, and that's the criteria that you're required to apply, and that's the Community Development 

Code. And what the Code says is that if they're—if the nonconforming use did not—was not consistently— 

ceased for more than one year, then they lose the right to have that nonconforming use in the future. So the 

question before you really is, was there a proper use during that time period in question? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Thank you, Bill. Thank you. Okay, so we still have Terry Emmert. 

Robert Snee: Also, ran out of cards. I'm Robert Snee. I'd like to testify as well. I'm the attorney for Mr. 

Emmert. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, we'll have you go after Terry. State your name and address, please, for the 

record. 

Terry Emmert: Terry Emmert, 11811 SE Highway 212, Clackamas. I've been before many bodies before, 

and I've seen many things, and I'm honestly really taken aback by what I've heard so far tonight. We bought 

that property about ten years ago. We went into the City because it had a horse boarding. It wasn’t 

commercial license. They boarded horses. We bought the property. Then got hit with about a half a million 

dollar sewer assessment for horse boarding, which I think we've paid about $400,000. The amount of 


money that we received off of this because we haven't had any viable—I shouldn't say we haven't had 

tenants that have wanted an industrial use, but every one we've requested has been turned down. Even our 

own use in heavy transportation, we've been turned down. I bought it so that we could keep the horse 

activities going and in the meantime, use it as a spare storage yard for our equipment and heavy 

transportation as we move buildings, things like the Spruce Goose, the Delta IV rocket from Boeing 

Aerospace [#1 54:30] and most recently, a big boulder down in California, and now the—the new Star 

Wars Systems. You know, the moving business has been rather slow right now for the last two or three 

years in Oregon, but in times past, we've probably move four or five buildings—four or 5,000 buildings in 

Clackamas County, Washington County, and Multnomah County. 

And, when we approached the City and said we were buying, we had another piece of property in 

Cornelius, the Walmart site. And we had the opportunity to sell it to some other people, but their usage 

wasn't going to be the building and so forth. It was a dealership that wanted to put a car dealership in. And 

we held off and worked with the City, and then after we did this, I've never seen such a lack of cooperation. 

We started to park some equipment; we were told we couldn’t park any equipment. I said, “My gosh, it's 

fenced. It's got paved surfaces. You have a garbage company here.” Cal-Cable [# 1 55:33] had their garbage 

service there. They’d been repairing trucks and equipment in the metal building for about 15 to 18 years, 

and there was horse boarding in the main barn. And they did some equestrian events; they did some cow 

roping. And I said, “You mean I can't use this for our own use?” And they said, “No, you don't fit into the 

[inaudible 55:57]. And, matter of fact, you have a roofing company there, they have to move.” And I 

couldn't figure out what was going on. 

So since that period of time, I've kept track of all the different businesses we've sent out and talked. We did 

have horse boarding as I said when we came there. And, you know, we live on the other side of town, and 

we own two horse boarding stables in Clackamas, and we also own McKay Creek Farms. And so, Heidi 

wanted to expand it as her business was going good, so we went ahead and expanded the stables and she 

moved over there and then used this. While she—after she was there for a period of time, she was told she 

needed a—she was—she had to get a nonconforming permit because she shouldn’t have cows there. There 

was nothing about having horses, but couldn't have cows. She went in, processed her permit, and they just 

said, “Remember, always to make sure there's horse activity.” They didn’t say, “Make sure you have a 

equestrian license, a commercial license.” It's just make sure the use of horses was maintained. A lot of the 

things that we've done over the period of time, we haven’t charged for. We haven't charged for a lot of the 

kids’ groups that come out there and do anything while we've had ownership, and, you know, we're looking 

to try to promote family things. We had talked to, actually, Mr. Reynolds about bringing out a youth 

organization called the Portland Quarter Midgets that race in Alpenrose Dairy. We were told that wouldn't 

be allowed. 

We had a tow truck company that wanted to store buildings inside of a metal warehouse. We were told we 

could do that, but the minute they parked the tow trucks and some cars on the outside, we were asked to 

have them moved, which we did. But we remembered what the comments was the last time they had to 

come before City Council, and that was, “Make sure you have horse activity there at least once a year. You 

cannot go without a year.” And in 2009, there was a bad storm—or maybe it was December, and we had 

two of our arenas collapse in Clackamas. And so, that's why some of our people from Clackamas come out 

here to use that arena. It's because we had no arena. It had completely collapsed. And, I guess it's fortunate, 

but Heidi ended up using it in the meantime, so we had overlapping. But I told both of them, “Please use it 

so to make sure we don't lose our usage.” There's no requirement that I have to charge somebody to use it. If 

we let somebody use it, if we want to give it to a charity or to an organization, that should be our privilege. 

You know, I guess I have a problem that the neighbors that called us, we had a lot of letters and they were 

very complimentary of how Heidi had taken care of the property much better than when the former owners 


had it. I've had compliments about our present occupants, how they've taken care of it, and they take pride 

of ownership. The amount that's being paid for rent is insignificant. It doesn't even pay taxes or insurance, 

but—about covers taxes and insurance, probably. But I feel that when you have facilities like that, and to 

have to prove every time you turn around that you're using it is a little bit crazy. But during the period of 

time that I had it for rent, I have two people that went in to the City; one was about four months after Heidi 

had officially vacated it, but was still coming over and using it from time to time, and they were told, 

“you're going to have to go through a process. It's not approved for horse boarding.” They were told that by 

Mr. Reynolds. I had another gentleman that went in there about nine months after it was vacated, and they 

were told the same thing; it's not approved for horses. Well, the true fact is it is approved for horses, and it 

has been. We've also had a couple calls, and they've said they didn't really appreciate us having our new 

tenant in there, and I found our new tenant is being very cooperative. And I've come out a few times to 

check, and they're very friendly, and I don't have a problem, but I don't feel there's any place for prejudicial 

treatment in the State of Oregon. I have a professional basketball team in the international league, and 

sometimes we [inaudible #1 1:00:31], we play in a pure white community. But, I have a little bit of a 

problem with that, and we'll fight to get rid of some of these prejudices because there's no place because if 

it wasn't for our Hispanic population and our Russian population, we wouldn't get a lot of the work done in 

the State of Oregon. 

As far as the utilities, this is correct. The water wasn’t used since the people that were using it were taking 

their horses out there for a visit. They weren't staying there for a week at a time. They were in there just to 

use the indoor facilities because of weather, or mainly because we had our other arenas collapse. The home 

was always used sort of as a caretaker's spot. It's not an individual residence, so it was for the caretaker, the 

person that took care of the animals. We have constantly maintained the property. I won't say constantly; 

let's say—we have received a notice of high grass during one time, and we had to send somebody on out to 

get it cut. A couple of times, we actually cut it and raked it and fed it to our water buffalo, so we still had 

agricultural activities going. 

As far as the use, we tried to make doggone sure that it didn't go a year. We made sure didn't go more than 

four or five months for usage. When I first heard Mr. Reynolds say, "But we've had someone watching it, 

and nobody's been there for a year," and I'm going like, well, huh, not only was Heidi there, but one of your 

local law enforcement sheriffs had their horses going out there, and also a lady from the tax department had 

their horse out there, and so there was usage. We certainly wish there was a higher and better use for it, but 

every use that we've taken, has been negated. I don't feel like going through the hassles of changing it. 

There's not a lot of business going on. If somebody comes out with a formidable plan in the future, we'll 

look at it because we'd want to make sure our tenant and the kids that have the horse activity are covered. 

As I said, we do have another facilities nearby. If there was capacity, well, then we would develop it. If 

there wasn't capacity, then when we would keep the horse activity there until the children had a place to 

have the activities because that's pretty important today. Does anybody have any questions of me? 

Commissioner Hansen: I guess I do have one, and that is, I mean, at least the argument's that I'm kind of 

understanding is still predicated on some form of a business license and so forth there on the property. And 

I mean, all the local little businesses around here have business licenses, and I'm not quite clear why the 

exception to— 

Mr. Emmert: Well, I don't know about an exception, sir. I have a business license. I have a Metro license, 

and I am the owner of the property. And our license is under Emmert International, and Emmert 

International has been involved with it from day one because Emmert International is the company that 

comes out and [inaudible #1 1:04:03] until a new tenant came in, we mowed the property. Emmert 

International employees are the ones that came out, and if there's somebody dumping garbage over the 

fence, they're the ones that clean it up, and we do have a business license. And here again, and all due 


espect, if you go back and look at the record, you'll see when it was a—went through this hearing before 

about three years ago, we were told to make sure it had horse activity. I don't recall it saying, “Make sure 

you have commercial licensed horse activity;” it just had to be the use. For example, if you have any kind of 

a business—let's say you just have a garden, and you grow something. They say you can't have any gardens 

in the City of Cornelius unless, you know, but you still have the residential gardener who grows for himself. 

And, since I am the owner of it, and we own the horses, technically, we can put horses out there. That 

doesn't negate our use that it's being used as a horse facilities. 

And when I went into the City ,when I originally bought it, and for the period of time until Heidi came onto 

the property, I didn’t have a city license to let people have horses there. Nobody ever mentioned it to me 

during that three or four years, and I didn't have a problem one. And, I'll be honest with you, on McKay 

Creek Farms, we don't have a horse boarding license there. Our rental stables are Springwater Farms. We 

rent to individual people that have stalls, and that's what most of these horse facilities, they do, and they 

open it up to equestrian centers, equestrian groups. I think your Washington County Sheriff's posse has 

practiced there many times, and 4-H groups, and most of those, we don't charge. And so, why would I 

license for you to charge people for the usage? I mean—and it didn't say that, and I've never heard that till 

today. And, I have seen a few other things about residential. Well, it's certainly not a residential use, and it's 

basically, when you have a building of that size—it's got the stalls; it's got the bleachers on the inside; it's 

got a snack bar. And, when I looked at the Code, actually it said, “operate and/or maintain.” Well, we 

maintain it by keeping the grass cut and by maintaining the building. And that does say that, the section of 

the Code, it says operating OR maintain. It doesn't say operate AND maintain. And I don't know if that's 

just a play on words, but it is what it says. And here again, as I said previously, I'm very happy with our 

people, with the tenants that are there, and, you know, I've only received maybe a couple calls in the last 

year that complained it wasn't because of what the facility was; it was a different kind of complaint. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Any other questions from the Commission? 

Commissioner Hansen: I'm thinking. Well, I want to hear more about your business license. 

Mr. Emmert: Yes—huh. 

Commissioner Hansen: So, I mean I—my—tell me what your business license is for on that property. 

Mr. Emmert: Well, I have a business license for, in the State of Oregon under Emmert International, and 

our business license is #805. 

Commissioner Hansen: Is that— 

Mr. Emmert: And we have a Metro license, but I don't know my Metro license number. 

Mr. Hansen: And those are attached to the property or to your person? 

Mr. Emmert: They go wherever we go. 

Commissioner Hansen: Okay. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Any other questions? All right, thank you very much. So, we have one 

more with Robert Snee. 


Robert Snee: I have a couple documents I'd like to submit for the record, which are copies of 

correspondence from the City of Cornelius to Mr. Emmert, and [inaudible #1 1:08:31] back to the City. 

Commissioner Hansen: Are those copies? 

Mr. Snee: Those are copied correspondences. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: They're all—okay, so there's not—they're all different. 

Mr. Snee: Correct. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. So you don't have one for each of us. 

Mr. Snee: Unfortunately, I did not bring one for each of you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Okay. Well, we can start at one and pass it down, I guess. 

Commissioner Hansen: Is that something we need to review right this minute? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Well— 

Commissioner Hansen: Are we going to stop the hearing for this? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: No. No. We'll have it, and Staff can make copies of it for us, but at this time, we 

don't have copies, but so you'll have to let us know what's in there. 

Mr. Snee: Sure, okay. My name is Robert Snee. I live at 13140 SE Cooper Street in Portland, Oregon, and 

I'm an attorney on behalf of Mr. Emmert. I've also assisted Mr. Orozco with his appeal in this situation. If 

you look of the last page of Exhibit A of the Staff Report on this appeal, it's my letter dated April 6 th , which 

accompanied the initial land use application requesting a Type I Director's Interpretation. That was 

submitted under protest. This property—the use of the property for horses and equestrian use was 

established in 1985. At no time did anybody ask for an interpretation or a review of the fact that—whether 

or not the property had continued in use for equestrian use and purposes. If you look at the initial 

application in 1985, it doesn't say that, commercial equestrian use. It just says horse riding arena. There's no 

limitations on the conforming/nonconforming use as a commercial use. And the use by Mr. Emmert and his 

friends and invited guests during the period of time when Ms. Hulsey was not a tenant on the property, up 

until the point when Mr. Orozco became a tenant on the property, does not have to be commercial use on 

the property to maintain it as a nonconforming use for equestrian purposes. 

A couple of comments about the Director's Interpretation and why it was given under protest; one of the 

letters—the first letters I gave to you there is a letter dated July 27 th from Mr. Reynolds to Mr. Emmert, 

stating that they have observed the property for an 18-month period of time, determined that no equestrian 

had occurred on the property. During his presentation of the Staff Report of this appeal, Mr. Reynolds went 

on and on about how the City had substantial evidence that there was no equestrian use on the property. 

That substantial evidence consists of pictures taken on one day each month by Mr. Reynolds of the outside 

of the building showing that there's no horses visible on the outside of the building or other activity that's 

visible on that particular day. It does not contradict the evidence that's been submitted by Ms. Hulsey and 

Ms. Matesi and by Mr. Emmert that throughout that period of time, he continued to use the property for 

equestrian purposes, and specifically asked them to use that property during that period of time while he 

was searching for another tenant to take over the property. 


The City is referring to a section that is actually an inappropriate section for whether this is a 

nonconforming use standard on this. It's not the nonconforming use of the land, but also the nonconforming 

use of the structure. It's the horse arena itself. Mr. Reynolds has referred to 18.135.030, which is 

nonconforming use of land, which says that if the use ceases for any reason for a period of one year, then 

subsequent use must be in conformity with the Code. In actuality, since this involves the use of a structure, 

18.135.040 is the appropriate standard Code section that the Commission should be looking at. And that 

states that any nonconforming use when a use of the nonconforming use of the structure and premises is 

discontinued or abandoned for one year, the structure shall not thereafter be used except in conformity with 

regulations of the district in which it's located. I think there is a distinction between operations ceasing or 

discontinued or abandoned. There was clearly no intent by Mr. Emmert as the owner of the property to 

abandon equestrian use of the property. 

One other Code provision I think you need to look at in reviewing in your deliberations is the definition of 

use. Use is a defined term under the Cornelius/County Zoning Code, and use is defined as—it means the 

purpose for which land or structure is designed, arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied or 

maintained. The horse arena is still designed, arranged, and intended for use as a horse arena. There's been 

no modifications or remodeling to that building's structure to take it away from equestrian use. It still has 

stables in there. It's still setup as a riding arena, and that equestrian use and intended use of that property has 

continued from the day Mr. Emmert purchased that property to the current date in question. 

Back in April at the same time or shortly after the initial application that was submitted on April 6 th was 

submitted, I—that was denied about two weeks later, approximately. On April 30 th , I had submitted a public 

records request to the City because in this quasi judicial hearing scenario of land use, I am aware that there 

is no discovery proceedings in order to obtain records from the City as to what their records show. I 

requested in that request, Public Records Request, documentation for every single nonconforming use that 

existed within the City. What I was provided for was 625 pages approximately, of which two-thirds of 

which are duplicates, and then identified just two pieces of property that there was nonconforming uses. 

One was a nonconforming use of a structure or porch, which existed in a right-of-way, and the other file 

pertained to this particular property and a hearing that was held before this Board in 2008 involving use of 

cattle in conjunction with the equestrian use of the property. 

What I did not get was any of the documentation with the current matter that's before the Commission. I 

didn't get any of the photographs that were taken by Mr. Reynolds documenting the nonuse of the property, 

or alleged nonuse of the property. There's no evidence that the City has documented on every single day 

from January 2010 through July 27 th of 2011 that there were no horses on the property. None of that 

documentation was provided, nor did I receive any documentation that there is ongoing surveillance of any 

other nonconforming use of the property. There's no documentation that every month, pictures were taken 

of the porch to determine if it still existed in the right-of-way. So I question—the City is making a 

determination why Mr. Orozco needs to file a Type 1 application in the first place when there was already 

established equestrian use on the property; why there was surveillance and pictures taken on a monthly 

basis of the outside of the fences and building indicating that—I don't see any horses inside, and I don't 

know if there's any camera that exists that would be able to determine if there were any horses inside the 

building, but it surely demonstrated that on those particular days in question, there were no horses on the 

outside of the property visible, or at least within the camera view. Does anyone have any questions? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Commission? 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: I guess I have one question. 



Commissioner Bob Ferrie Jr.: So if—from what I'm hearing, your guys' testimony basically is that 

periodically, there's always been horses on there, regardless of the fact that the City took pictures on a 

certain day and didn’t see the horses outside, you're saying—different people have said that there's always 

been horses there here and there. 

Mr. Snee: People here have testified that they personally took horses to the property on dates that didn’t 

coincide with the dates that the City was there taking pictures. There's one day of each month over a 10- 

month period, 12-month period of time that pictures were taken showing that on this date in question, there 

are no horses on the property. Those—that does not contradict the testimony of the witnesses saying on 

these dates, which aren't—don’t happen to be different dates than those pictures were taken, I've personally 

took horses to the property. It doesn't contradict the testimony of neighbors who live across the street who 

said within this last period of time, year and a half in question, I saw horses there on an occasional basis. 

They weren't there all the time, but I did see horses on that property. That property was being used for 

equestrian purposes. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay. No, my question is— 

Mr. Snee: And I think that that continued use indicates that there's no intent to abandon the property for 

equestrian use, and its intent to continue to maintain it for equestrian use— 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: My question— 

Mr. Snee: —to allow the nonconforming use to continue. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay. My question is if these—is it normal for horses to be on the property and 

there not be any vehicles or any sign of any human beings on the property? Is that normal? 

Mr. Snee: On a particular day, it could be, yes. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay. So they're just boarded there. It's not like somebody's watching them 24/7 

is what you're saying. 


Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay. Thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Snee: Thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Alright, so that concludes the portion of speaking in favor for this appeal. So 

next, I'll ask for those who are wishing to speak in opposition to the appeal. I have a few cards here, and 

starting with Don Semm. Please just state your name and address for the record. 

Don Semm: Don Semm, 882 South Ginger. 



Mr. Semm: Approximately 15 years ago, I had some horses, and I had them for about a year, and then I got 

rid of them because of the biting of the horse flies and stuff. I stayed on my property for another 14 years, 

and my neighbor about an eighth of a mile away acquired horses, and I ended up with more horse flies, 

which then, I moved, and that's why I moved to Cornelius. And I know they go at least an eighth of a mile 

away, and that's what's worrying me now. Is the same thing going to happen? I'm going to have to move 

again because I just cannot stand having that thing bite me, and that's what I have to say about this. 


Commissioner Hansen: [#1 1:19:59] Thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Thank you. All right, Karen Herinckx. 

Karen Herinckx: Herinckx. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Sorry. 

Ms. Herinckx: Okay, my name is Karen Herinckx, H-E-R-I-N-C-K-X like x-ray. I live at 1068 South 

Oleander Lane in Cornelius, and I will show you where my property is. My property is right there, right up 

against the field. And I was here in 2008, and I spoke to the City Council then about the horse flies and the 

fact that because they were bringing cows in there all of a sudden—they hadn't been there for years—I had 

flies so bad I couldn't even sit outside and eat. I couldn't have a party in my backyard. I bought one of those 

big fly catcher things; it filled up in two days solid with horse flies. And I was here that night, and I talked 

about Heidi. And Heidi does a wonderful thing, and I said that. She does a wonderful thing for kids. And if 

she can control the horse flies, then that part would be resolved for me, which she did. She planted 

something, she said, in the ground or—I don't know, but they were cut. I would say they were probably cut 

70 percent, which was a lot because it was horrible, and it's still not great, but it was—she did do what 

she—she tried to do what she said she was gonna do. That night, I distinctly remember that the same issues 

came up; the cows—it was talked about that the cows were not supposed to be in the city limits, and that 

night, after everybody testified about the horse flies and then this and then that and the smell—I'm sorry, 

cow manure just smells worse than horse manure. There was just three times as much as there'd been with 

just horses, and it was awful. Apparently, we live downwind instead of upwind because we get the smell 

whichever way that goes. We get it. 

I remember that night, and it was, you know, no, they're not supposed to do this. No, you know, the statute 

says this; the ordinance says that, and I remember the Council—whatever you are, Commissioners, sitting 

there saying, but they do such a good thing, I think we'll just kind of bend the rules. I remember this, even 

though it was stated it was supposed to be a certain way, you guys—not you guys; I'm assuming you all 

weren't on there—but it was decided that because she was a good person, she was doing such good work— 

and she was, I’m not arguing that—that it was allowed to stand and the cows were allowed to stay. And it 

didn't matter what the neighbors felt. It didn't matter that we couldn't have dinner out on our own decks or 

that we couldn't, you know, our personal space was terribly invaded. I have not had a horse fly problem 

since Heidi left in 2010, January. There hasn't really been—if there's been horses there, there hasn't been 

enough that there's been any flies because we haven't had any until we just started getting them again this 

summer, you know, and I had one—another one fly in my house today, so I know they're coming back, and 

they are—they do bite you, and, you know, they're not—they're not [inaudible #1 1:23:48]. 

The people that are leasing it or renting it or using it for free or whatever's going on; I can't decide from 

listening to Mr. Emmert what's going on, but they are wonderful. They are. They’ve taken care of that 

property better than—since Heidi was there. And actually, Heidi did a fairly good job of cutting the brush 


and everything behind our houses. These guys have been awesome. These guys have done it twice behind 

my house. I have no complaints about them and how they're maintaining the property at all. None. The only 

thing—and I've watched their riding, and it's beautiful. It is beautiful, and they have been there riding their 

horses and doing formations and they have their sombreros on, and it was very pretty. But again, the music 

is an issue because they do go usually, I think, on Saturdays is when I remember it happening, and they 

were playing their music. And I know they probably have to play it loud, but it is so loud, and I live quite a 

ways from the arena. My friend that's with me lives right behind the arena. And I can hear it like it was in 

my—right there next to me, blaring in my ear. 

And also, the lights were on. It was going until 10:30 at night, and, you know, people can’t sleep, and you 

can’t have your windows open if you don’t have air-conditioning. You can't—I mean, it is a pain. I 

appreciate the fact that they are a family-oriented group, and I appreciate the fact that they can do things 

with their kids and their grandchildren. And I do believe what they're doing is a wonderful thing. I do. And I 

am not a racist compared to what Mr. Emmert was implying that that's the only complaints he's had is 

about—that is ridiculous. I don't believe that. You know, he's the only one that has brought that up, and I 

totally [inaudible #1 1:25:47]. I'm not racist against anybody, and I do admire them greatly for what they’ve 

done, but it’s still—as far as I can see, it's still against the rules. You know, you have to play by the rules, 

and the last time, people didn't play by the rules, and the rules got bent. And I’m going to say what I said 

that time, because that's just about when it started. That's what was going on in Washington, DC. The rules 

were getting bent, and look where we ended up. And they were bent that night here, and, you know, I don't 

know what the solution is, but I can see both sides of it. 

So I'm for it for their sake, but I'm against it because it’s just—it's not right to just keep—you know, you 

make a rule, and then you break it all the time. It's not right. As far as cutting the grass, I have had to call 

every year to the City to ask them if they can call Mr. Emmert and have him mow the grass because I've 

tried that before, and it didn't work. And when they do mow it, they never mow the big berms that are on 

the—so that gets this high, and then every 4 th of July, that whole neighborhood, it's in-the-air fireworks. 

One of these times, we're going to have a fire there because I see the sparks come right over that field, and 

that grass is not cut short at all on the berms. Never has it been cut, so I have a big complaint about that. 

And I'm not thinking he's totally honest about some things because I've talked to him in the past, too, and 

some of the stuff that I'm hearing is not what was relayed to me. So anyway, that's all I have to say. 

Commissioner Hansen [#1 1:27:37]: Thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: All right. Thank you very much. So, we have one last card. Is that Claudia? 

Claudia Lewis: That's me. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, Claudia Lewis. Would you state your name and address for the record? 

Ms. Lewis: Yes, my name is Claudia Lewis, and I'm the unfortunate person that lives exactly behind the 

barn. I live at 1134 South Oleander Lane, Cornelius, Oregon. I've noticed that most of these—first of all, I 

need to say that I'm far from racist myself. In fact, I dated a Mexican person for four years, so I cannot 

believe that this racial thing should have ever even been brought up. That has nothing to do with the quality 

of the good works they're doing. It has nothing to do with what race anybody is—any of that. It has to do 

with abiding the law of the rules that have already been stated, and they were stated a certain way, and they 

were bent the last time. I couldn’t get off work the last time, but I wrote a nine-page letter expressing then 

with Karen how I felt, but it didn’t seem to matter because we're just two of us because nobody that could 

afford to take off work or they weren't affected this way as I was. I can't even have my family out there. I 

have 16 grandkids and 6 great-grandkids, and I can't even have my family outside between the smell, the 


flies, the loud music. When it goes on, in my bedroom window, that little thing that's like this, that's lit up, 

it's lights up so loud, so bright, that my whole bedroom is lit up every time they have an event. 

Now, I'm not saying that what they do isn't great, but I notice that three-fourths of these people that were 

here don’t live where I live. They don’t have to put up with the smell or the flies or the noise or the lights, 

any of that crap. They don't. People who live across the street— 

Unidentified Female: Yes, we do. 

Ms. Lewis: Well, then, why didn't you mention that? 


Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Let's keep comments in the crowd out, please. Just to us. 

Ms. Lewis: Anyway, okay. Okay. 


Ms. Lewis: Okay. And, most of these owners, or these other people, they don't even live in Cornelius. 

They're not affected by it daily. I am, but they're not. And when I bought that house nine years ago, that 

barn—it was in wintertime, and everything was frozen. My first question I asked the real estate guy is, is 

that an active barn? Oh, no, there hasn't been anything here in years. Do you think I would have bought my 

home that I now can't even get rid of because of the economy and because we've got cows? Who wants to 

live right behind smell like that? Nobody. Nobody does. Nobody wants to put up with all that noise and 

clutter and lights and la-la-la. I took work off tonight so that I'd be able testify in hopes that maybe—that 

the Commission could understand where I'm coming from. If you were living in my house, would you want 

to put up with it? Would you want your—not to be able to have a family function? Or every time on the 4 th 

of July, you're worried that your house might burn down because there’s so much fireworks and stuff that 

goes up over there? 

Unidentified Female: Oh. 

Ms. Lewis: Well, it's true. 

Unidentified Female: No, it's a lie. 

Ms. Lewis: No, it's not. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Let's keep comments out, everybody, please. Let everyone get a chance just to 

listen. Thank you. 

Ms. Lewis: Anyway, that's really just about the bottom line. I'm guessing those are the reasons for. It's not 

that I don't appreciate the idea behind it. And Heidi, I'll agree with Karen on Heidi. The only time my yard 

was really kept up extremely nice is when Heidi was there. Only time. Now I've got those weeds and things 

growing even—that belong to them—growing over my fence in my backyard. They never maintain any of 

that. I have to worry about that, and yet, it's supposed to be their property. But they don't take care of it. 

They do the bare minimum, and like Karen said, the only reason that the yard and stuff gets mows down is 

when it gets so deep that we—enough of us call and complain that they finally have to cut the sucker. 

Otherwise, they don't care. It just grows. They don't care. Heidi was the only good thing that was there the 


whole time as far as I knew. I'm not saying that this group isn't nice. I'm saying she did the majority of good 

stuff. And yeah, I understand that they want to have a place for their kids to grow up and all that. Well, I 

want a place for my grandchildren to be able to come, too. That's my home, but they can't come. “Grandma, 

we're not going to your house; it stinks there. It smells. We can't even have hotdogs out there. Look at all 

the flies.” I—Karen talked about two of ‘em. I had four of 'em in three days. That's how many I had of flies. 

I mean, just nuts. So, you know, I know the final decision is yours, but keep in mind when you make that 

decision how you'd feel if you were in my shoes and you had to live right behind it , and you couldn't sell 

your home because that was a definite thing besides the economy, because who wants to live behind a 

bunch of cows and horses and flies and manure? Nobody. Thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox All right, thank you. So are there any other comments regarding this proposal? 

Ms. Lewis: Oh, excuse me. That—I never did see any horses in the last umpteen month-span either. I heard 

a lot of noise. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, thank you. Alright, so are there any further comments by Staff? 

Mr. Jacobs: This is Chad Jacobs from the City Attorney's office again. I just want to clarify what I deem 

as the issue before you tonight because you've received a lot of testimony, some of it which is, although 

very important, isn't necessarily directly on point to the question before you tonight. The issue really before 

you tonight is whether or not there was a continued use of the pre-existing use that happened at the time of 

annexation. And so the question is, during the 18-month period in question, was there use of the stable—or 

of the property in the same fashion as the property was being used at the time of annexation. The 

application, which is in Exhibit D of your materials, is the original application before the annexation. And 

that's incorporated into the Staff Report which is then incorporated into the Planning Commission and City 

Council Findings at that point in time. And the language that is used there is that as long as the use 

continues in the same manner as when annexation occurred, then it should be able to continue as long as no 

changes occur. What the Code then says is that this pre-existing use is permitted so long as it doesn’t lapse 

for a period of one year or longer. So, the real question before you is whether or not you believe the use that 

was in existence at the time of annexation lapsed for a period of one year or longer. 

Mr. Reynolds: I don't know if you have any specific questions for me, but that's—City Attorney Jacobs 

framed it exactly right. I mean, that's the question that's before you. What you have is an urban piece of 

property that was never intended to be used for rural uses. It was intended all along to be developed for 

industrial and urban uses. That's never happened, so the nonconforming use of the commercial horse stable 

would have to continue for—would have to keep in continuance until it was not operational, and that's been 

documented for that period of 18 months [inaudible #2 3:46]. I'm not sure about going through specifics for 

each person that testified, but I'd be more interested in seeing if you have any specific questions about any 

of the testimony or any of the Staff Report. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Commission, are there any questions of Staff? 

Commissioner Bash: Yeah, I certainly have one. One of the things that we're, you know, looking at is a 

business license/Metro license, and they said that they had a Metro license, but not a city business license. 

I'm not clear what that means as far as how we should be viewing this. 

Mr. Reynolds: Right. You can—a city business license for any business that operates in the city is 

required, or a Metro business license, a person can apply for, and that gives them the opportunity to operate 

businesses throughout the Metro area. Mr. Emmert said he has a Metro business license for his international 

operation to work in the metropolitan area. That's probably correct, but there's no use or a commercial 


usiness license for a horse stable operation which is the use that was allowed into the City as a 

nonconforming use at the time of the annexation. That hasn't been [inaudible #2 5:13]. I'm sure he does 

have a business license to operate in the metropolitan area. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Dick, my question would be—okay, when we had this come before us three 

years ago, it was whether or not we're going to allow them to keep horses on the property and allow cows. 

That was the main thing, right? 

Mr. Reynolds: It was—at that time, in 2008, the issue was the incorporation of livestock onto the site. 

And that was viewed by the City as an expansion of a nonconforming use. The Code says you cannot alter 

or expand a nonconforming use, so at that time, we brought it before the Planning Commission on that 

basis that we were bringing livestock in, and that wasn't—that was extending the nonconforming use. That 

was the decision that was before you at that time. It wasn't before you whether the equestrian/horse stable 

use was nonconforming at that time; it was whether the expansion of it by adding cattle was the issue. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay, so when we approved the fact that they could keep the cows there and the 

horses, they had to continually use—have that same thing happening throughout the next— 

Mr. Reynolds: Correct, you were saying—you were recognizing that a horse stable at that time could 

continue to operate with cattle and livestock on the site, and that's what was in 2008. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Because it was part of the rodeo function that they were doing at the time was 

the way it was all explained, and they provided proof that cattle was on the property at different times 

where they testified— 

Mr. Reynolds: The Planning Commission made a decision that livestock was allowed in the past, and so it 

could be allowed currently, and therefore was not an expansion of a nonconforming use. That's my 

recollection of that. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Any other questions? 

Commissioner Bash: Yeah, I guess I did have another one. So, in regards to the way the stable was being 

used in the past, horses were boarded there, and so with the horses being boarded there, and horses being— 

at least we've got some statements, were in the building at some point, I guess I'm a little fuzzy on that kind 

of difference, too, because it doesn't state how many horses or what length of time, or how they're to be kept 

in the building, but it seems to me that there's probably some—maybe some horses in there during that time 

period because we can't prove one way or the other except for what's on the outside. So again, I'm a little— 

I’d like to get your—what makes you think, I guess, that there weren't any horses appropriately boarded 

there? 

Mr. Reynolds: Well, the last operator that we identified in the Findings Report was Native Sun 

Equestrian, which is Heidi Hulsey's, from 2007 to 2010. I think she—when she testified tonight, she talked 

about those timeframes as when she operated her Native Sun Equestrian there. And they never came in to 

renew utility accounts when they left. They—the residential use stopped at that time on the site. So, as far 

as the operation of the horse—commercial horse stable or commercial use for equestrian use, it wasn’t 

visible from the site. They didn't have any licenses that—or business license that documented they were still 

active there or were going to be active. The utility account was active, so it establishes a date of when that 

activity stopped. It was [inaudible #2 9:24]. And then, directly after that, we had a dismantling auto 


usiness try to move in there. It moved in; made a land use application to change the use for auto 

dismantling, fabrication—he had quite a list of uses that he wanted. Started working on the site, and the 

[inaudible #2 9:45] told him that he had to come in and apply for the appropriate land use for a change of 

use. He did that, and then he never followed through with it. He was out within two months or two and a 

half months. From that period on, there was no horse use back on the site that we saw, there's no 

documentation of anybody coming in applying for a new use or a business on the site. There was no utility 

account used on the site. The site was vacant of commercial activity. It's an industrial property. It's not a 

residential property; it's not a rural property. 

Commissioner Bash: Thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: So I have a question about the business license and it sounds like at one point, I 

believe, it was Ivan that was saying that he applied for that license, but it was denied. Is it possible to get 

the license that you're stating is required? 

Mr. Reynolds: If the land use is in compliance. So when somebody comes and applies for a business 

license, we check the land use to see if it's legal. We ask—we also ask questions about if it's a—in a 

residential zone, if it's going to be a home business, so we screen that before a business license gets issued; 

so because you have certain zones where businesses are allowed and not allowed, and so, at that time, we 

had made Mr. Orozco aware that that nonconforming use in the City’s opinion had vacated and did no 

longer—and was no longer valid. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Does the Commission have any other questions of Staff? Okay. The 

public hearing is officially closed. 

Mr. Emmert: We have a rebuttal [inaudible #2 11:50]. 

Male Speaker: What was that, Chair? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I don't believe we do in this process. Let me consult— 

Mr. Jacobs: There's no rebuttal required. You can certainly, you know, allow more testimony if you want 

to have more input. Now, I think the way you should address this, these concerns is I think first, you need to 

decide what was the use at the time of annexation back in 1985. And then that's the use that was required to 

be continued for—and can't pass for more than a period of one year. If that use, whatever it was, when it 

was annexed in in 1985, did lapse for a period of more than one year, then the property can no longer be 

used as a nonconforming use of that standard, if that makes sense. It's sort of a two-step analysis that I think 

you all need to deliberate. So if you would like more information, whether it be from Staff or from anyone 

who's testified, you can certainly, before closing the hearing, ask those questions of anyone who's testified 

or of Staff to help you clarify those two questions. So my recommendation would be perhaps to deliberate 

about that a little bit amongst yourselves to figure out if you have any questions before actually closing the 

record, so that way, in case you do come up with questions, you don't have to reopen the record and close it 

again. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Okay, thank you. So— 

Mr. Snee: I would also like to ask that the Commission keep the record open for seven days to allow me to 

submit some legal authority with respect to change of the property ownership or use of the property by the 

owner as opposed to a different occupant for the same continued use. And I'd also like to point out that— 


Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I think we're getting into a different process here with you speaking out of turn, 

so— 

Mr. Snee: Apologize, but I just wanted to make sure that— 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I understand. I understand. Thank you. Let's have a quick deliberation on the 

Commission. We've heard from the audience. We've heard from Staff. Does the Commission have any 

insight as to what we've got to determine here tonight as far as whether or not the property—the use since 

1985, if it's still what the Staff is saying, or is there any other ah-has that you guys have had from the 

testimony? Are there— 

Male Speaker: [inaudible #2 14:29] 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. No—so there's no, no comments? So you guys are all pretty clear then on 

where we're at. 

Commissioner Bash: I think that the way that argument—I mean, if—again, if I understand things 

correctly. And we're getting into a discussion again which I'm a little bit uncomfortable about, but— 


Commissioner Bash: But I will say that it still boils down to was it run like it was ran back in '85, and did 

they have a license and so forth to be able to continue on with that business. And there still seems to be the 

piece that at least I'm looking at. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Right. Right. Okay. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: And my confusion would be what was done in '85 and what we heard three 

years ago. We allowed them to continue to have horses, cows, doing basically a rodeo. So was that what 

they were doing in 1985? That would be my question. 


Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: And then, to me, I don't think I— 

[Off microphone comment] 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Oh, speak up in your—are these on? 

Male Speaker: Yeah, they're on. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Oh, they actually work? Okay. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Did you want to hear what I just said? You want the audience to hear. Okay, 

sorry. My thing I want to be sure of is comes down to what the property was intended to be used back in 

1985, and what we allowed the property to be used for three years ago. And it seems to me we expanded the 

use three years ago. So, when you say that we have to go back to make sure the property's being—or the 

continuous use is from what the property was being used in 1985, not what we agreed to give them a couple 

years ago. 


Mr. Jacobs: I wasn't here in 2008, but from the conversation this evening, what it sounds like the decision 

made, and Mr. Reynolds can correct me if I have this wrong, but what you decided in 2008 was that the use 

of cattle on the property was consistent with the use in 1985. So therefore, it was a pre-existing use that was 

permitted. So, it wasn't that you expanded, that you permitted the expansion of the use; that was just a use 

that was consistent of the use in 1985. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Thank you. You're correct. 


Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: All right. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: So does the Commission want to hear any further testimony or rebuttal? 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: I'm open to it. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. At this time, can we take just a quick break to use the restroom or 

facilities and we'll come right back. So just like break five minutes. All right, we'll be right back. 

[Gavel down] 

Male Speaker: Okay, you’re on. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, we're going to call the meeting back to order. [gavel down] Okay, so we 

were hearing from Staff, and we were talking if there were any more comments or questions from Staff, and 

we were about to close the hearing, but then we heard a request to keep the record open, and I believe City 

Staff has a comment or recommendation for the Commission to consider. 

Mr. Jacobs: So under the state laws, you—the City basically has 120 days to make a decision and in the 

materials, you'll see that the date for the City to make that decision is August 11 th , and that's for the City to 

complete its process. If you just keep the record open for seven days, then there's a procedure which allows 

rebuttals to go back and forth which would extend that period close to the time towards the 120-day 

deadline. So instead of just keeping that record open for seven days for written testimony, my 

recommendation would be that you actually keep the—continue the hearing to a date certain, which has to 

be at least seven days from today. At that point in time, then you can come back, instead of having the 

rebuttals going back and forth, you can just continue the hearing to that point in time, consider the 

additional testimony that you've received, and then deliberate and make a decision on that date. So at this 

point in time, what I will recommend is that you pick a date that's at least seven days from now, but closer 

to that seven days, so it leaves time to prepare for a potential appeal to the City Council. The City Council's 

meeting is the first Monday of the month, which will be August 6 th , a couple days before the August 11 th 

deadline. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. So Commission, is everyone clear on that and how do you guys feel? Do 

you want to keep the record open with the recommendation from Staff? 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: [#3 2:02] It's fine. That gives us time to go over this information, but— 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. So then we need to pick a date. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Next seven days? 


Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: So the next seven days is July 3 rd . 

Male Speaker: [#3 2:13] That gives us until July 3 rd ? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Well, that would be the— 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: [#3 2:15] At least. 

Commissioner Bash: [#3 2:16] That would be the earliest. 

Male Speaker: [#3 2:19] What would be the latest, then? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Well, the Council needs to— 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: [#3 2:02] Before August 7 th / 

Mr. Reynolds: [#3 2:29] Yeah, it definitely would have to be before then. Your normal calendar workshop 

date is July 10 th , which is the following Tuesday. Do you want to wait till after the holiday? It's up to you. 

As Chad Jacobs has said, you need to honor the seven days to July 3rd. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: So my only concern is I am due pretty soon here. So the longer we wait, the 

chances are I won't be here. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: [#3 3:04] Okay. Well, lets'— 

Male Speaker: [#3 3:06] So, what would work for you in this? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Well, I don't know what's going to work for the baby, but, you know, sooner is 

better for me. But is July 3 rd okay with you guys? It's the day before 4 th of July. 

Male Speaker: [#3 3:06] It doesn't make a difference to me. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I don't have plans. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: [#3 3:21] Does it have to be on a Tuesday night? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Does it need to be on a Tuesday night? 

Mr. Reynolds: No, you just have to determine the date of the hearing [#3 3:30]. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. So the third would be the soonest, which is a Tuesday. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: [#3 3:37] Okay. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: We couldn't do it before that. 

Commissioner [#3 3:06]: Tuesday works with me. 


Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Tuesday works for you? 

Commissioner [#3 3:45]: It looks like maybe it doesn't work for Bob. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: I'll make it work. If everybody else is fine with the third, it's fine with me. 

Commissioner [#3 3:49]: I’m fine with the third. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: I don’t believe I’m going anywhere. 

Commissioner [#3 3:52]: Okay. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I think we're deciding on the third. 

Commissioner Bash [#3 3:56]: Do we need a motion, Chad? 

Mr. Jacobs [#3 3:59]: Yeah, I would make a motion to continue to that date. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Do I have motion to keep the record open and a proposed date for July 3 rd 

to meet? 

Commissioner Bash: Yeah, I'll make a motion that we keep the meeting open until July 3 rd , which we'll 

reconvene it on that date, the hearing. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: All right. 

Commissioner Hansen: I'll second that motion. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Motion was by Commissioner Bash; seconded by Commissioner Hansen. 

All those in favor, please say aye. 


Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Any of those opposed? Okay, passed unanimously. 

Mr. Snee: [#3 4:37] Okay, thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: So at this point, that item on the agenda will be continued on July 3 rd . 

Unidentified Female: What time do you schedule that? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I believe our meetings are at 7:00 p.m. 

Mr. Reynolds: [#3 4:50] 7:00 p.m. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, so— 

Mr. Snee: [#3 4:54] So these four letters that were presented; do I give those to you or—copies of all that? 



Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Yes. So, if we can keep the chambers quiet, there are just a few more things on 

our agenda. If you want to leave at this time, please just do so quietly. 

D. OLD BUSINESS 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: And next on the agenda is Old Business. Is there any Old Business from the 

Staff or from Commission to discuss? 

Mr. Reynolds: Not that we've placed on the agenda, no. 

E. NEW BUSINESS – Planning Commissioner Application. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. And as far as New Business goes, it looks like we have a Planning 

Commissioner Application. 

Mr. Reynolds: Correct. I'll pass this out to you. We just received this application a while ago. She faxed it 

here. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: You guys want to do [inaudible #3 5:56]? 

Mr. Reynolds: So I put this on the agenda, just so you can have the opportunity to meet Jennifer who 

applied. She came to the hearing tonight, so if she wants to come up to the microphone and introduce 

herself, that'd be great. If not, she's been here listening the whole night. So— 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Jennifer? Tell us about yourself. 

Jennifer Heuer: I am Jennifer Heuer. What do you want to know? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Well, you can just reiterate this if you want, since I just got it. 

Ms. Heuer: What I didn't say on here is I feel that I take the time to listen to other people's opinions and 

take others into consideration before making decisions. I don't jump easily into making decisions, and it's 

obvious from tonight's meeting that that's not something you can do. I tend to think things over and try to 

look at things from all perspectives, and ask a lot of questions. I would've asked a lot of the same questions 

that were asked today, probably a few more. So I just—I think it would be an interesting position to be in, 

and I'd like the opportunity. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Fantastic, thank you. 

Male Speaker: [#3 7:12] Thank you. Bill's got a question. 

Commissioner Bash: I always have a question. So I know you like—that you're organized, and you've got 

a strong memory, and you enjoy learning new things. What are some of the different organizations that 

you've kind of been involved with over the last, say, five, six years? 

Ms. Heuer: You know better than that. I've been on the Library Board for the last five years. I've been 

serving as President for the last three or four. I've helped with multiple activities in the community. 

Recently, I helped with interviewing for the new City Manager, which was an interesting and fascinating 

process. I'm helping right now with planning the 100 th anniversary of the library. I've been involved with 

the school. I was Library Board President, and also, PTO President over at [inaudible #3 8:11] and involved 


with the school there. Outside of that, I like [inaudible 8:16]] and helping out as much as I can. I try to 

attend City Council meetings when possible. I also have great pride in Cornelius. This is my hometown, 

and I'd like to be a little bit more involved. 

Male Speaker: [#3 8:31] Excellent. 

Commissioner Bash: Thank you for answering the question. 

Ms. Heuer: You're welcome. I knew you'd put me on the spot. 

Commissioner Bash: I think that you bring a lot of good elements to that position, so I'd want other people 

to be aware. 

Ms. Heuer: Well, thank you. 

Male Speaker: [#3 8:51] And, one thing you might talk about, just on the time commitment. It's Tuesday 

nights. We have one regular meeting, which is the fourth Tuesday, and then a workshop time that's usually 

the second Tuesday, but don't always regularly meet on that day, so—but those are basically the two days 

unless something unusual comes up like this where we have a date certain here and we are scheduling it out 

[#3 9:12]. 

Ms. Heuer: And that's why I don't have commitments prior on Tuesdays. The Library Board meets the first 

Thursday of the month, so that’s [inaudible #3 9:23]. And, I don't have small ones at home, so—well, I do, 

but they're older now and can take care of themselves and don't really want me around as much. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Sounds good. So the process then that— 

Male Speaker: [#3 9:40] Yeah, the process would be, we would—I would write a letter basically of 

recommendation to the Council I would ask Amy or Amy and Sheila to sign it, and then it goes to Council 

and they make the actual appointment. So, but they like to have a recommendation or some kind of support 

letter from the Commission or the Board. So we—if everybody's okay with Jennifer becoming part of the 

Commission, which I think would be great, I can— 

Ms. Heuer: I was going to be kind of a smarty-pants and say because you need a quorum, and there may 

not be one soon, but I didn't know if you had a sense of humor or not, so, that's always a questionable state 

when you come to the Library Board meetings is if we're going to have a quorum or not, so, but, yeah. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: So, are we—is everybody able to go ahead and decide whether we want to— 

Commissioner: [#3 10:35] I'm totally for it. 

Commissioner: I support Jennifer. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I am supporting you, too. 

Commissioner Hansen: Yep. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Griff supports you, too. 

Commissioner: [#3 10:46] You shook him up a little bit. 


Ms. Heuer: This whole thing here, you guys have to finish this up, right? This meeting tonight? 

Commissioner: [#3 10:52] Yes. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Yeah. Yeah. You got a little choked up over it. Okay. 

Commissioner: [#3 10:57] We could get a letter possibly to the July 16 th Council Meeting and they would 

probably note the importance, so it'll be, like, August, probably, but— 

Ms. Heuer: Okay. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: That would be great. 

Commissioner: [#3 11:08] Okay. 

Commissioner: You don't want to get her in before July 3 rd ? 

[Laughter] 

Male Speaker: [#3 11:15] Don’t know—don’t think I have the possibility [inaudible]. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Well, you've got our support, Jennifer. 

Ms. Heuer: Thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: All right. So if there's no other New Business, anything else from the 

Commission that's for good of the order? 

Commissioner: [#3 11:31] No new hearings that we know about, Dick, in your future? 

Mr. Reynolds: Yeah, we've got a couple things coming up that—we think development applications that 

would normally come before you. 

Commissioner: Excellent, that's good to hear. 


Mr. Reynolds: But I'm not saying much more than that. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: There's more stuff to come. 

F. ADJOURNMENT 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: All right, well, it's about 9:20. I say—do I have a motion to adjourn the 

meeting? 

Commissioner Starrett: I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Do I have a second? 


Commissioner Hansen: I'm having fun seconding, so I'll second that. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: All those in favor, say aye. 

[Multiple affirmative responses.] 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Meeting adjourned. 

Transcript prepared and submitted by ______________________________________________ 



PLANNING COMMISSION 

Tuesday, July 3, 2012 

City Council Chambers 

1310 N Adair 


Planning Commissioners Present: Vice Chair Amy Sheckla-Cox, Commissioners Bill Bash, Bob Ferrie 

Jr., Griff Hansen and Mark Starrett 

Planning Commissioners Absent: Chair Sheila Griffie 

Staff Present: Mr. Reynolds: 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 

[Verbatim Transcript—Audio recording begins] 

A. WELCOME 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox All right. We’ll call this meeting to order. Welcome, everybody, this evening, 

July 3 rd . We’ve got one Commissioner who’s coming right back. So, tonight just want to note that if there’s 

anyone wishing to give oral testimony for any of the public hearing items, you should sign up prior to the 

public hearing. And there should be some slips in the back you can hand over to Planning Staff here. And 

just limit your presentation to few minutes. All right, so let’s go ahead and continue the public hearing. 

B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 

1. APPEAL: Appeal of the Community Development Directors Interpretation CDI-01-12, 

Denying Horse Stable, Equestrian and Residential Use at 1085 S. Flax Plant Rd., 

(Map # 1S304DC, Tax Lot # 4600), File No. AP-01-12 

APPELLANT: Ivan Orozco, 1163 32 nd Place, Forest Grove, OR 97116 

LOCATION: 1085 S Flax Plant Rd, Cornelius, OR 97113 

CRITERIA: 

Chapter 18.05.010 through 18.05.090 (Introduction & General Provisions) 

Chapter 18.55 (General Industrial Zone, (M-1)) 

Chapter 18.135 (Non-Conforming Uses) 

Chapter 18.140 (Community Development Director’s Interpretation) 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I will now continue the public hearing on the AP-01-12 appeal of the 

Community Development Director’s interpretation, CDI-01-12 denying horse stable, equestrian, and 

residential use at 1085 S Flax Plant Road. I will close the public hearing prior to the Commission’s 

deliberation and decision. At the June 26, 2012 hearing, the Planning Commission continued the public 

hearing until July 3, 2012 at the Appellant’s request. Prior to closing the hearing and deliberation, the 

Planning Commission will consider additional public testimony. The Planning Commission may 

communicate with its staff and legal counsel during its deliberation. Planning Staff has provided the 

Commission with copies of the new written arguments that was received along with written testimony 

received by July 3, 2012 for consideration. Staff will now present the Extended Record Findings 

Report, Mr. Reynolds? 

Phone 503.357.3011 Fax 503.357.3424 

1355 North Barlow Street 

Cornelius, OR 97113

Planning Manager Dick Reynolds: Thank you. Dick Reynolds, Planning Manager, I’m here to 

present the Extended Findings Report for File No. AP-01-12, and I’d like to enter this Extended 

Findings Report into the record. As you know, this is a continued hearing from what was presented last 

Tuesday on June 26 th before you. At that hearing, a request was made by the attorney of the property 

owner and the Applicant to continue the hearing until July 3 rd , tonight, in order to permit submission of 

additional testimony and evidence for the hearing. 

As of five today, when this report was prepared for you, no new information was submitted. So what 

you have in the Extended Findings Reports, Staff’s addressed some of the issues that came up during 

the hearing last week. And also, I’ve got some of the written testimony that was handed to you last 

week. So, I’ll start out by discussing a few of the issues that were presented at the hearing on June 26 th . 

One of the issues that came up was a discussion about nonconforming use structures, Chapter 

18.135.040 of the City Code. 

Robert Snee, the attorney for the Applicant and the property owner, provided some testimony 

concerning this section of the Code as being the section that should have been addressed as opposed to 

a section that was addressed by Staff, which is Chapter 18.135.030. The provision of the Code 

pertains—this provision of the Code pertains to structures that may have existing uses that at the time of 

annexation to the city would no longer be permitted. The entire subject property was used at the time of 

annexation for commercial, equestrian, and horse uses. Therefore, Staff concluded that the applicable 

section of the Code is Chapter 18.135.030 Nonconforming Uses of the Land. However, Staff notes that 

the Code is not entirely clear and that Chapter 135.040 applies to the use of structures and premises. 

And as such the Commission could interpret that section to apply to this matter. As a result, it is 

possible for the Commission to conclude that both Chapter 18.135.030 and 18.135.040 apply to this 

matter. Whether either or both provisions apply, however, is of no consequence to the final decision 

before the Commission as both sections prohibit a continuation of a nonconforming use that has 

stopped for one year. For this reason, Staff recommends that the Commission interpret the Code in a 

manner so that both sections apply. In doing so, the Commission would need to determine whether the 

pre-existing nonconforming use of the land ceased for any reason for a period of more than one year, as 

well as whether the nonconforming use of the structures and the premise were discontinued or 

abandoned for one year. 

A second point of the Code that was brought up during last week’s hearing was Chapter 18.195.210, 

which is the new definitions of the Code. The City Development Code for the term “use” means the 

purpose for which land or structure is designed, arranged, or intended or for which it is occupied or 

maintained. Staff made a finding in File No. CDI-01-12 that the subject property is designated by the 

Comprehensive Plan for industrial use and is currently zoned General Industrial (M-1) on the City 

Zoning Map. The purpose, design, and intended use of the M-1 Zone is for various industrial activities 

which require processing, fabrication, and manufacturing. The intended use of the General Industrial 

(M-1) Zone is not for nonconforming commercial horse stables, equestrian, and caretaker residential 

use. The only reason such use has been permitted in the past is because the use fell within the exception 

for a pre-existing nonconforming use. Accordingly, the issue before the Commission is whether this 

exception, which permitted the preexisting nonconforming use, still applies. The definition of the term, 

“use” quoted above is relevant to this analysis to the Commission, to the extent the Commission needs 

to determine what exactly the pre-existing use of the property was when the property was annexed to 

the city, and whether this use ceased or was discontinued or banned for a period of one year or more 

after annexation. 

The next issue that we’re having some discussion about was business licenses. Mr. Emmert, the 

property owner provided oral testimony that Emmert International did not have a City of Cornelius 

business license, but did hold a Metro license. Based on the information on the Metro website, they had 

R:\Board and Commissions\Planning Commission\CPC July 3 2012 Verbatim Minutes.doc

issued a Metro business license to Emmert International. Staff has researched the applicability of Metro 

business licenses for use in the City of Cornelius. Metro business licenses are a regional contractor’s 

license for use by construction and landscape contractors. The license covers all construction trades for 

both commercial and residential, as well as all landscape contractors. The Metro business license does 

not cover any and all other businesses. All other businesses that operate in the city are required to get a 

City of Cornelius business license; therefore, Staff finds that a Metro business license issued to Emmert 

Industrial is not applicable to any commercial horse stable or equestrian use on the subject property. As 

stated in the Findings Report, there were no City of Cornelius business licenses issued for commercial 

horse stables and equestrian use on the subject property from January 2010 through July 2011. 

The 2008 appeal, File No. AP-02-08, this was included in this Findings Report because there was 

questions at the last hearing about what was determined in the 2008 appeal hearing that took place 

concerning the same property. And in 2008, the Community Development Director issued a decision, 

CDI-01-08, stating that the use of livestock, cattle, was a use that was not permitted in the General 

Industrial Zone and that was not part of the nonconforming horse stable and equestrian use for the 

subject site. The Planning Commission reversed CDI-01-08 and decided that livestock were part of 

historic stable and equestrian uses on the site. Contrary to oral testimony provided at the hearing on 

June 26, 2012, the transcript of the minutes from the 2008 Planning Commission hearing and the final 

decision do not provide any language, statements, or findings that indicate that having a horse 

occasionally on the subject property secures and validates the nonconforming use of the property. 

Historic commercial use: Staff provided documentation in the Findings Report that the property was 

developed prior to annexation for commercial use. Apache Stables was the name of it in 1968 when 

they applied for a commercial septic system permit. The property was annexed to the city in 1980 by 

Milton Buehner, who lived at 9480 NW Helvetia Rd in Hillsboro with a business name of Roy Linden 

Farms. Employees lived at the horse stable property in a caretaker’s residence to manage the business 

onsite. At the time of annexation to the city, the property had the same structures on it that it has today, 

a horse arena with viewing grandstands, stables, restrooms, food concession area, barn with stables, and 

caretaker residence, a manufactured mobile home. Equestrian riding events, the boarding portions, and 

selling of concessions are all business commercial activities. In 1981-82, Washington County tax 

assessor records classified this property as an improved commercial. This property is currently 

classified with Washington County Assessment and Taxation as improved commercial in an industrial 

zone. The use of the site prior to annexation into the city was a commercial business in a county 

agricultural zone. When the property annexed into the city, it was still a commercial business that 

boarded horses, held equestrian events, and sold concessions. Accordingly, all relevant evidence 

indicates that at the time of annexation, the property in question was used for commercial purposes. 

Staff believes the correct interpretation of 18.135.040 (c) and 18.135.040 (d) is that a continued 

nonconforming use must be the same as the use that existed at the time the property became subject to 

the Code. This is supported by the language of Chapter 18.135.010, which states forth that the purposes 

of permitting pre-existing nonconforming uses; specifically this section states that it is the intent of this 

type of permit to allow nonconformities to continue until they are removed. They are not to be 

encouraged to—they are not to encourage their perpetuation. Based on this intent, it is clear that the 

pre-existing use must remain at a level substantially similar to the use that existed at the time the 

property became subject to the Code, which in this case was a commercial business that boarded horses, 

held equestrian events, and sold concessions. As explained in CDI-012, the use of the property as a 

commercial horse stable with equestrian use and caretaker’s residence ceased for a period of 18 months, 

and accordingly, the nonconformity is no longer valid. 

Finally, the response to the written testimony that was submitted to you at the last hearing by Robert 

Snee were four letters dating from July 27 th through November 18 th . Three of the letters were from the 

City of Cornelius; one letter was a response letter from Terry Emmert to the City. The first letter was— 


July 27 th , was 2011. The letter was—the City was writing a response to telephone conversation between 

City Staff and Mr. Emmert about the cessation of equestrian use at the stables of Cornelius. The August 

9, 2011 letter was an informational Code enforcement letter from the City about Ivan Orozco’s horse 

stable and equestrian business moving onto the property. The City Development Code requires that City 

Staff do a two-letter process, where we are required to send out an informational letter when a 

noncompliance issue is taking place, and then a warning letter is the second letter that goes out. So, this 

was the first letter. And then, in response to that, Mr. Emmert submitted a response letter to the City 

and dated it November 7 th . The City also responded to that letter. 

In conclusion, the City does not permit horse stable use, equestrian use, and/or residential use or all 

three in the General Industrial (M-1) district. The City has demonstrated that at the time the property 

became subject to the City Code, it was a commercial horse stable with a caretaker’s residence. These 

uses were recognized at annexation as temporary preexisting nonconforming uses. The Appellant has 

not provided substantial evidence to outweigh the documentation presented by the City that the 

commercial horse stable, equestrian use and caretaker’s residence were discontinued and ceased for a 

period of 18 months. Therefore, all uses on the site must now conform to the City Code and the General 

Industrial (M-1) Zone. Thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions for Staff at this time? 

Commissioner Bash: I just have one. Just want to make certain again, that I’m clear. The water was 

turned off in July—sorry, January 2010 I believe, and stayed shut off until July 2011. Is that correct? 

Mr. Reynolds: There’s two meters. One was, I think, disconnected in June of 2010 and stayed off until 

July of 2011. There’s a second meter that was off for a period of about four years. 

Commissioner Bash: Even longer? 

Mr. Reynolds: Even longer, yes. 

Commissioner Bash: Thank you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox Okay. Are there other questions? Okay, at this time, the Appellant may now 

present any additional testimony to the Commission. Thank you. So, did you want to come forward? 

Robert Snee: 13140 SE Cooper St. Portland, OR 97236. Sure. I have prepared copies for each of 

you. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox Okay, great. 

Robert Snee: I’ve already provided a copy to the City Attorney and to Mr. Reynolds. 

Mr. Reynolds: Thank you. 

Robert Snee: For the record, I’m Robert Snee, attorney representing Terry Emmert in this matter, the 

owner of the property. To begin with, I’d say I’m quite dismayed at the extent to which the County 

Staff and Community Director seems to be going out of his way to try to end the equestrian use on this 

property. Again, the surveillance of the property photographs which were taken, which I already stated 

the fact that they were not taken on a monthly basis, but only over a five month period out of the 18 

months that their photographs were taken, one day and sometimes two days of each month. Those were 

taken by Mr. Reynolds apparently, and was his interpretation that his evidence supported the fact that 


there was no equestrian use of the property for an 18-month period. If you look at the exhibits that are 

attached to my letter here, as well as in every prior decision, by the City, by the Planning Director, by 

the Planning Commission pertaining to this property, not once is the word “commercial” ever used to 

describe or define the use on the property. It’s only equestrian use of the property. The application was 

for a riding stable and an arena, equestrian use of the property. 

When this Commission reestablished in 2008 that nonconforming use existed on the property, they 

referred to it as equestrian use of the property; no limitation that it has to be commercial. And, in fact, 

there is no such limitation in the use of the property; it does not have to be a commercial use of the 

property, just a equestrian use of the property has to be maintained and not be discontinued for a period 

of 12 months or longer. As I pointed out in the letter that I’ve provided to you, the Court of Appeals has 

recognized that the cessation of a business where storage was a primary—or a common element of use 

in property, the fact that a commercial business ceased did not terminate or discontinue the 

nonconforming use of that property, so long as it was still used for storage purposes, which is the 

identical situation to what we have here. During the 18 month—less than 18 month period of time, 

because there’s testimony that there were still horses stored there—you’ve got the letter from Jennifer 

Blake, [18:24] who testified or submitted earlier that her horses were still stabled at the premises 

through the end of February 2010. You’ve got testimony of Ms. Hulsey, Ms. Matesi, neighbors across 

the street that never was there a 12-month period of time that equestrian use of the property was not 

occurring. The photographs and the recommendation of the Findings by the District Director are not 

substantiated by the evidence, and in fact, they are refuted by the evidence that has been presented to 

you. And it is the your decision to make a decision on the record de novo without giving any deference 

whatsoever to the prior decision made by the Community Director. You have to make the decision on 

your own based on your review of all of the evidence that’s been submitted to you. 

As I pointed out the Staff exhibits, there were two photographs taken in March of 2010, two different 

dates in April of 2010. There was a memo in September of 2010 with no photos attached, photos taken 

in December of 2010, January of 2011, February of 2011, and then not until July of 2011. That does not 

document the fact that there were no horses or equestrian use on the property throughout that 18-month 

period time that they claimed. The crux of the matter is that the testimony that’s been given to you that 

you’ve heard was submitted to the Community Director so he could make his interpretations, presented 

evidence that there was never a 12-month period of time that equestrian use of this property ceased. 

It’s—as I indicated in my April 6 th letter that was submitted with the initial application requesting the 

interpretation. At no time was there ever a request for a review of the fact that this nonconforming use 

needed to be reestablished. It had already been legally established before you on numerous occasions, 

most recently as 2008. There was a four part conclusion that when that application was made for a 

Community Director’s interpretation that it was going to be a denial of the continued use of the 

property and that we’re going to need to be before you making this appeal. There should have been no 

reason that the application should have had to have been made in the first place, nor for the applicant 

and Mr. Emmert to go through the expense of filing an application for an interpretation and the 

subsequent appeal that we're here before you today. 

Let me just reiterate. Back during last week testimony of Mr. Emmert, I’m just reminding you of the 

fact that prior to the current applicant leasing the property from Mr. Emmert, Mr. Emmert testified that 

he had two different potential lessees of the property come to the City to inquire about it. They were 

informed that horse use was no longer allowed on the property. This was well before the year period of 

time of any alleged discontinued equestrian use of the property. So I just—again, the only thing I can 

say in closing is I’m dismayed at the extent to which the Community Director seems to be going out of 

his way to deny that this property is—equestrian use continue on the property as a valid pre-existing 

nonconforming use that has not been discontinued. 


Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Question— 

Robert Snee: Yes. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: —before you step down there, the last comment you made about there was 

applications for new equestrian-type business on the property, where is the evidence of that? 

Mr. Snee: Mr. Emmert’s testimony about people that he had inquired about leasing the property from 

him went to the City. I don’t have anything—there was no written application made to the City. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay. So you had a couple lessees that wanted to run some kind of 

equestrian event, and the City said that they couldn’t do it because it was no longer used for that? 



Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Just to expand on that, when was that conversation held? Do you know the 

timeframe? 

Mr. Snee: Prior to July of 2011; I don't know when those conversations occurred. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Commissioners, do you have any other questions? 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: That’s it. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I’d like to ask you a question about—I haven’t heard anything about the 

water being shut off. And I would like to know if you have any comments to address that topic. 

Mr. Snee: The only question—thing that I could add to it personally is what I heard from the prior 

testimony last week, is that there is an existing well on the property that can and does provide water for 

the horses. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: And my understanding in reviewing this—and maybe Staff can help me out 

with this—is that I believe that hasn’t been deemed to be potable water, and that it’s not able to be used, 

so I think—is that right that the use of that is actually illegal? Am I understanding that right from 

reading the reports? 

Mr. Reynolds: Yeah, the State Plumbing Code requires that you have a running, potable source for 

commercial use. And so, for any commercial activity you’re required to connect to City Services in the 

City. So… 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: But to have a well, what it would take to actually use that legally? 

Mr. Reynolds: In the City, you wouldn’t be able to use it for commercial uses. [24:12] 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox Oh, okay. So that’s my concern, is that I don’t know if you have any 

comments to address that issue or… 

Mr. Snee: No. 


Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I’m just looking for more information because honestly that’s something for 

me that hasn’t—I haven’t heard enough testimony or comment from you. 

Mr. Snee: I wish I had personal knowledge, but all that I can say is I have to concede that from, you 

know, March of 2010 through July 2011 there was no “commercial” equestrian use of the property. But 

I don’t think that under the standard of what is considered to be “use” that that is a necessary finding 

you need to reach. I think it’s a red herring being thrown at you by the Planning Department trying to 

say that you have to say that the commercial use existed. The case law that I’ve cited in the letter from 

the Court of Appeals says “no, commercial use does not have to exist”; just a common element of use, 

i.e. if Mr. Emmert, you know, raised racing horses, he could use that property for his own benefit if he 

had, you know, to raise horses. It’s not required. It’s a nonconforming use, but it’s not a commercial 

use, but he’d still be entitled to use the property for those purposes. The fact that he’s just raising them 

for his own personal pleasure doesn’t mean that the nonconforming use of the property has 

discontinued and not that he’s no longer allowed to keep horses on that property. It’s just—the logic of 

that, it just escapes me. 

Commissioner Hansen: Well, I’m with you kind of. But we have—at the time of annexation, it was 

commercial—or for commercial purposes. So when it’s annexed, doesn’t it have to remain commercial? 

And if—I mean that’s… 

Mr. Snee: No— 

Commissioner Hansen: That’s where I’m stuck because… 

Mr. Snee: —it doesn’t mean that it has to, but I think the case law that I’ve cited to you from Herb 

Hegman [26:03] v. Clackamas County stems from the proposition that it does not need to remain 

commercial. It specifically state that, “We are unable to agree that cessation of the on premises 

businesses was an abandonment of the storage use.” We think that more relevant question is whether 

there is a common use that the various operations shared, whether they were commercial or personal 

use. 

Commissioner Bash: I guess going—I’m sorry, not on the commercial end, but just going back to the 

water piece, I’m not even thinking about it for the horses per se. But for a year and a half, to have no 

toilet facilities and a place to wash your hands or anything like that and people were using it—some 

events there seems to be extremely unsanitary, and I’m not certain that’s legal either. Comments on that 

piece—because it’s— 

Mr. Snee: As it was testified to, it is very easy to bring water with you for the horses, bring water for 

personal use. There are antiseptic cleaners that don’t require water for sanitary purposes that are readily 

available on the market. And the fact that the use during that period of time was intermittent, it wasn’t 

an everyday or every other weekend situation, but it was such—sufficient so that there was no gap of a 

12-month period of time when all equestrian use on that property ceased. The Court of Appeals has also 

recommended that intermittent use may be sufficient to continue a nonconforming use. That’s the 

situation that we have here. During that period of time, if there was no commercial operation there was 

still ongoing equestrian use of the property, albeit under, you know, handicapped circumstances due to, 

you know, the water being turned off from the City water supply. It’s—to my knowledge, the water 

from the well is potable for consumption for animals, and, to my knowledge, the animals have been 

consuming that water to no negative effects. 


Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: One more question while we’re on this. During these events that were being 

held periodically through out the months, I understand that you’re saying they used—well, what did 

they do for electricity to have people in these—in this barn or whatever it is? And how did people see in 

there? 

Mr. Snee: Having been in the structure for the first time yesterday myself, I can tell that in the daytime 

there is no need for electricity. There’s sufficient adequate natural light that enters into those buildings 

that there is no need for electricity. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Throughout the year, whether it’s winter, summer, or… 

Mr. Snee: I can’t speak for the wintertime, but during the daytime, at least, during normal daytime 

hours I know that there should be sufficient light. 


Commissioner Starrett: I think—I’m just going to follow up on that. We have testimony that 

indicated that there were nighttime events. What did they do during those nighttime events? How did 

they provide lighting? 

Mr. Snee: I don’t recall who testified as to that and… 

Commissioner Starrett: Some of the homeowners indicated there were nighttime events with lights 

and… 

Commmissioner: [29:38] Music. 

Mr. Snee: I think that might refer to events that have occurred since the current Applicant’s been there. 

I’m not positive of that. 

Commissioner Starrett: Thank you. 

Chad Jacobs, City Attorney: Madam Vice Chair and members of the Commission, if I could just 

entertain one thing before Mr. Snee leaves in case he wants to respond to this. I understand that the case 

law that he cited and we previously reviewed the case law, and there’s a big difference between the case 

law that he citing and what’s before you tonight. The case law that he’s citing to is an interpretation of a 

state law, which applies to counties; those are all county cases. The issue before you tonight, I guess 

you can break it down into three separate issues now that this one’s been raised. In the last one, we had 

two separate issues. The first issue is that you guys are charged with interpreting your Community 

Development Code, so the statutes before you are 18.135.030 and 18.135.040, which permit 

nonconforming uses. So the first question for you, the threshold question is what do those sections 

permit when they permit a nonconforming use? Does it have to be the same use that existed at the time 

that the property was annexed into the city and became subject to the Code, or would it permit 

something less, as Mr. Snee is suggesting. So, that’s sort of the threshold question; the fact that the 

Court of Appeals has interpreted state law which applies to county is a different matter; really has no 

bearing on you. And you know, it could be persuasive to you, but it’s not binding on you as a 

Commission. You have the authority to interpret your own Community Development Code as you think 

the Code should be interpreted. And Staff has set forth in their Extended Report today, the reason why 

they think it should be limited to commercial uses, and that’s why they think the Code should be 

interpreted that way. So that’s the threshold question before you, is how should the Code be interpreted. 

Once you decide that, then you can determine what was the use at the time it was annexed and then, 


you know, did—was the use continued and last for a period for more than a year, so that’d be a third 

question. So again, the threshold question for you, is how you interpret your own Code. And although, 

you know, certainly the case law cited by Mr. Snee could be persuasive to you, it’s not binding on you. 

Mr. Snee: Just one follow-up comment. I agree. The statute in question, the Hegman [32:00] vs. 

Clackamas County case is a state statute applicable to counties. However, the provision was 

interpreting the definition of a use under the state statute, which the language within that definition of 

use is virtually identical to your definition of use under your City Code. So the logic and reasoning 

behind the state—the interpretation of the state statute certainly is persuasive, and it ought to be 

controlling into your decision as to whether or not it is necessary that a commercial use be maintained 

through your City Code. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Thank you. 

Ivan Orozco: May I add some to some of the questions that you guys were asking? 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Yes, at this time we’re going to since there’s— 

Unknown: [32:46] He can talk. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Oh, okay. Okay. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, please come forward. And 

just state your name on the… 

Mr. Orozco: Ivan Orozco, and I’m the Appellant. On the water issue, we bring our own potable water 

since the City—we had the water already, the potable water City water. And they denied it to us, and 

they shut off the services even though we were paying them. And up ‘til now I was still paying for the 

services, which is a—drains from. [33:16] If we don’t have potable or City water, it’s because they 

decided not to give it to us any more, but we had it at once. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Just to clarify, from what I read, my understanding is that they shut it off 

because payments weren’t made. 

Mr. Orozco: It was one payment behind, and then I got caught up to it again, and they denied to turn it 

back on again. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: So—and you just asked one more time? You didn’t keep asking to turn on 

the water? 

Mr. Orozco: Yes, I did. I came to the City here. And then they said, “For some reason we can’t turn it 

on.” I had talked to somebody, so I’m assuming they were talking back and forth between here and the 

City over on Kodiak Circle. 


Mr. Orozco: I paid—I paid all my dues. I paid everything. I got behind, like you said. And then I paid 

everything, and I wanted to be reconnected. And they denied it. And then I talked to the gal in the front 

desk where Richard works; and I talked to him, and they gave me—they told me that the only reason 

they can—the only way they can provide me the services again is to fill out that application that they 

gave me where I had to get a licensed plumber to come in and put in a double check valve, which I 

followed through with that. Then I came back, and I turned it in Dick’s hands, and then he said, “No, 


we can’t do it any more,” after I was ready to pay the fees and had a licensed plumber and everything 

and they denied it. 

Commissioner Starrett: Do we know the timing on that? 

Mr. Orozco: And then we brought in portable potties. 

Commissioner Starrett: Do you know the timing on this? 

Mr. Orozco: And we did that every event we had—when we had some event. We brought in portable 

potties. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: What was your question, Commissioner? 

Commissioner Starrett: My question is when—what was the time period that you applied to get the 

water turned back on? Was this in 2011 or 2010? 

Mr. Orozco: This was 2011. 

Commissioner Starrett: Do you know what month? 

Mr. Orozco: If I’m not wrong, one night when we started in there and we had the service on the Fourth 

of July and it went on for a few months. I don't know exactly how many months it went on. And then 

that’s when they shut off the water, after [inaudible 35:38] September or October. And then we went 

through all the processes that we were asked to do, and then we got denied, so that we don’t have the 

services with them, not because we didn’t want them, because they didn’t want to provide it. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Okay. 

Commissioner Bash: I’m still a little confused on the timeline. So you’re saying somewhere after July 

2011 you went—came in to the City and applied for some water services in fact? 

Mr. Orozco: Correct. 

Commissioner Bash: And they were denied? 

Mr. Orozco: No, they did give us the water services. We had water the first—that one—and then we 

got a payment behind, then it got disconnected and— 

Commissioner Bash: And that was later on in 2011— 

Mr. Orozco: Later on— 

Commissioner Bash: —like August, September, October or sometime? 


Commissioner Bash: Just so that you know, we’re looking at between June 2010 to July 2011. We’re 

not looking after that point. We’re looking just during a very tight timeframe from 2010 to July 2011. 

So we’re— 



Commissioner Bash: We’re not— 

Mr. Orozco: Right. And the reason I stepped forward and I wanted to speak is because you’re asking 

abut water and services since after I’ve been there. When I wasn’t there, then I have no idea— 

Vice President Sheckla: Right. 

Mr. Orozco: –how it had been operated or who was there. And also just right after this—right before 

we leased the property from Terry Emmert, I went into the City, and I spoke to Dick Reynolds 

personally. And I asked him if it was useful for equestrian. And he said that yes, it was grandfathered, 

but he said that because there must—there probably was a period of 12 months or more that it wasn’t 

used for…and he said that they might have lost a clause. So I went and talked to Terry, and Terry 

showed me the evidence that he provided to you guys. So that made me believe that, yes, it could be 

used. That’s why we went ahead and leased it, based on what Dick Reynolds told me and based on the 

evidence that Terry Emmert provided to me 

. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox : Any more questions for him? 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: [38:16] At this time, no. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, thank you very much for letting us clear that up. Okay. Is there—is 

there anyone else speaking for the Appellant. Okay. 

Mr. Jacobs: [38:37] So after the Appellants and after you ask for people who are testifying in support 

of the Appellant— 


Mr. Jacobs: And then [inaudible 10:51] signed up for that. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox Okay. So this is actually for the members of the public? 

Mr. Jacobs: Correct. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: And I have a card for you in here? 

Heidi Hulsey: Yes, it’s Heidi Hulsey. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: So we’re going to the next part of the agenda, which is to allow 

members of the public to present additional testimony and, this is in favor for the Appellant. Okay. So 

just go ahead and state your name and address, please. 

Heidi Hulsey: Correct. My name is Heidi Hulsey, PO Box 845 Hillsboro, OR 97123. I’m the owner of 

Native Sun Equestrian Center, currently located out in Washington County. We used to be located at 

the property in question. And I’m prepared to just speak specifically to some of the evidence stated by 

Staff as to the specific use, of course, with being onsite within that period of time. One of the issues was 

whether or not we had had permission or an agreement with Terry, or Mr. Emmert, to use the property. 

The former manager of Terry’s and a property leasee of his, permission was kind of implied. Access— 

had access not only to—did I have access, but it was my obligation to oversee the property until 


someone else came onsite here at the Flax property. So coming onboard and getting in there was not a 

problem. I had my own lock on it until someone else came in, and they put another one, which I still 

had access to a key for that. 

We—there’s a discrepancy—or not a discrepancy, but they claim there’s a conflict of use from when 

Marion was there with 911 Towing on March 18 th . There’s also a date that I was there onsite. Not only 

were we onsite, but Marion was kind enough to help with an axle problem that we had on one of our 

horse trailers. His vehicles at the time were outside. His business was in what we call the back barn. 

Here it’s the lower right corner. So the arena use wasn’t compromised, so it wasn’t a problem for us to 

be inside. He did have some storage in the main area of the barn, but—again, it was where the rental 

stalls were so it wasn’t in our way. 

As far as it being the City water, there is a second meter that we had turned on at one point when we 

were there. I don't know. It was probably early 2007 or late 2006. And then we found that it actually 

didn’t go to anything that we needed. It was a part of an old irrigation system that they had onsite. So 

that we had on just for several months, and then we turned it back off when we realized we didn’t need 

it. And we did leave—when we left, we finally shut water services off in July. I think it was July 2, 

2010, but again that only serviced the house and the snack shack and then the restrooms at the front side 

of the facility. The horses are—no harm for them for drinking the well water. It’s actually pretty good 

water. Several kids drink out of the hoses to no ill affects, and that is run off of the well. And they—it 

didn’t affect the use of having the horses there. When we had folks come in for some of—I know my 

affidavit’s in there. When we did our little clinics, when we did a practice, that’s a two hour drill team 

practice for the high school, at that point—when we haul into McMinnville facilities quite often—we 

don’t bring water for that. The horses don’t require water. We just haul in. They ride and go home. So 

that’s what happened during the dates of the practices. And the clinic was also just a four hour time, so 

most of those folks come in horse trailers that have a living quarters in them as well, so they are pretty 

self-sufficient. They have their own bathrooms, their own hand-washing facilities that are just—they go 

and rodeo all over the place. So they haul into random facilities all across the state. And I think that’s it. 

Those are the specific things that I remembered last time that I was able to—as far as having been 

onsite before having the horses. We still manage a facility of 120 horses. We operate weekend events, 

sometimes having three or four different folks come in Friday, Saturday, Sunday night. So if there’s 

something they have a question that’s to regard of the health of the horses or whether or not a horse can 

be onsite and not be seen, I would be the person to ask. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Can you clarify again the meter that you said that was disconnected, that was 

for the house, the snack shack, and the restrooms, and when was that turned off? 

Ms. Hulsey: That was on July 2, 2010. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Commissioners, any questions of Heidi? Okay. Thank you very much. 

I have a couple more cards up here. I’m not sure if this is for the Appellant or against. So let me know 

when I call your name: Ramona Valenzuela? Are you—are you for the Appellant? 

Ramona Valenzuela: I’m for, yes. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, please come forward and, and go ahead and state your name and 

address into the microphone. Don’t be nervous. 

Ms. Valenzuela: My name is Ramona Valenzuela. My address is 3839 Pacific Ave and I’m in Forest 

Grove, Unit 39. I just want to say that as far as the water situation goes, we—I mean they supply good 

water for us to drink. I think I speak for my fellow horse mates, I guess is the word. We would be—I 


don’t know what the word would be, but—lost, I guess, if you guys closed the place down. It’s very 

enjoyable to go there. Please don’t close it. Thank you. 

Unknown: [45:31] Thank you. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Thank you. And I have one more participation card. I’m not sure if 

you’re for the Appellant. Is it Tamara or Tamara? 

Tamara Hill: For. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: For? Okay, please come forward and state your name and address. 

Ms. Hill: Tamara Hill, 3839 Pacific Ave. Space #38, Forest Grove. We used to manage this, and I can’t 

remember the exact dates on the property when we were there with Terry, and we were Terry’s 

property manager. And I’ve been going to that barn since I was 13, and I’m 53. I [inaudible 46:15] 

there. I’d—let’s see—there’s always been good water; there’s always been well water. The water that 

you’re talking about like what you were just asking about, like she said. It’s set for an irrigation line 

that’s out in the parking lot area. We [inaudible 46:30] big outdoor arena. Can I go to the picture? 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Sure. 

Ms. Hill: This here—I don't know how well you can see it. This used to be a big, huge, outdoor arena. 

And this little, tiny green box thing that you see here is one of the box that she is talking of that’s in 

ground for the irrigation line. And that’s why that’s there, so we could water the arena and stuff like 

that. And I don't know, like she was saying, I’d hate to see this come to a close. There’s been too many 

children that have gone through, you know, bad homes with parents or [inaudible 47:08] being in 

trouble. Horses keep them out of trouble. You know, it keeps them in a positive state. And I’ve had 4-H 

groups through there. I’ve had drill teams. We all know, I’m a professional rodeo [inaudible 19:28]; 

we’re called the American Cowgirls. And it would be a shame. And, you know, there’s not very many 

barns left of this size any more. There’s McKay Creek, which Terry owns. There’s Valley West—well, 

we used to call it the old Valley West. The young ones, they called it [inaudible 19:48] Farms. But it’s 

the size of the arena that we want. This is the size that you can run professional barrels in. The other 

small arenas, you know, you can’t do that. [Inaudible 47:51] 100 by 200 if I remember the exact size of 

the arena or not. But the facilities aren’t coming here any more. Landowners are coming in, you know, 

property owners [inaudible 48:00] all those homes used to our pasture. You know, they come in, and 

they lower them, flatten them out, where do we go? You know, there are still going to be horses here 

and we just need places like this to exist. I know it’s sad that the homes have all built around it, but 

we’re all still here, you know, that have the home—or the horses. We’re just being pushed out, pushed 

out, pushed out. That’s why I’m asking the City to please give us a chance. You know, there is good 

water there. We’ve all drank out of the well. I’ve had—I’ve drank out of that, you know, you’re 

watering your horse, and you get a drink. You know, it’s been over years, like I said, since I was 14, 13. 

Nothing’s changed, I don’t think. It’s been a great place. I’d hate to see it possibly go away guys, all of 

us. You know, if it keeps going with Washington County Fairgrounds, this might be the next place that 

they may have to have fair because there’s not much there anymore that you can, you know, if it rains 

and keeps going like this, the 4-H doesn’t even have a [inaudible 49:02] for the Washington County 

Fairgrounds. They’re going to have to go to McKay Creek or Valley West again, which Terry Emmert 

has for us horse people. If it wasn’t for him, we wouldn’t have it. He’s been trying to—it seems like 

he’s been trying to save all these big horse facilities, what’s left; not much. So, I appreciate your time. I 

just wanted to say something. You know, the people that have it are great. I hope you continue to let 

them have it. Thanks for your time. 


Commissioner Starrett [49:33]: Thank you. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr. [49:34]: Thank you. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Thank you. Okay, looks like I don’t have any more participation cards. 

So— 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr. [49:45]: Can I ask a question of somebody that already talked? 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: We could probably have them come back up. Who is it? 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: The lady sitting right there. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Oh, Heidi? 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Heidi. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Heidi, would you come forward, please? Thank you. Go for it. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr. [50:01]: Heidi, I just have one question. What I don’t understand is when we 

had this hearing back in ’08, I know you were part of that, and I know we reversed what the City had 

decided. My question is how long after that hearing was it—how long after the hearing was it before 

you left the property? 

Ms. Hulsey: It was almost two years. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay, so it was— 

Ms. Hulsey: That was in 2000—and I believe it was in 2008; maybe, October/November 2008 that we 

had the— 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: The hearing— 

Ms. Hulsey: —the hearing as far as the use of the cattle. And then it was almost another two years, and 

then Terry invited us to take on managing the McKay Creek facility. And because it’s 86 acres and 120 

horses, I was better able to expand the business and do the—more of the equine therapy. It’s—we just 

have access to trails and a little more property was why we chose to go there. And we did—we ran both 

for a period of time. My—I moved my family to the other facility, but we still maintained both for quite 

a while, but that ended up being a hundred and so many horses that we were responsible for. It was just 

a little—I couldn’t see baseball games, and it was a lot of my time. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay. I was just curious how long you were actually running what you were 

doing when we had the hearing. 

Ms. Hulsey: I had started that—I had been there since 2006. I think January or December 2006 was 

when I had my first—and actually let me go back farther. It was—I was—my intention was to just do 

this a study on [inaudible 51:37] the use of horses while I was finishing my degree at Pacific. And what 

happened was that people saw that we were in the buildings and using it, and I had more and more folks 

come in. And they were asking for more active boarding to happen there and more events, “Please bring 

in the cows.” “Please do—allow the 4-H groups, the mounted shooters.” Well, the shooters didn’t come 

in; they’re at our other property; but the drill teams and those kinds of things. So it started in 2006 as far 


as my involvement. And mostly it was the equestrian teams needing the size—that size of arena. Ms. 

Hill’s correct. It’s 100 by 200. McKay Creek, where we are now, is 100 by 200, and the only other 

facility of that size is the McMinnville Fairgrounds. So, to run a full-sized barrel pattern or a full-sized 

drill team, you have to have that size of an arena, or it makes a difference. If you have 12 horses riding 

at a gallop all together, they run out of room in the small arenas. And then that affects their chances at 

state, of which we have a six-time State champion that’s practiced there since 2007. 

Commissioner Bash [52:43]: I’ve got one other question, too. So the current stables that you’re at, 

does that have a business license—that you run? 

Ms. Hulsey: No. We’re an LLC. We have a state business license. Kind of the same—which is the 

same as what we had when we were operating at Flax Plant. 

Commissioner Bash: Right, but then—so there’s two different licenses then—would that be correct or 

wrong? 

Ms. Hulsey: You know, I— 

Commissioner Bash: I’m just trying to understand. 

Ms. Hulsey: As far as a business license to operate, not necessarily myself being a license provider— 

Commissioner Bash: No, no, just business license for the facility. 

Ms. Hulsey: I know that we—because Native Sun is an LLC, and then [inaudible 53:27] we’re required 

to have state’s insurance and we have a business license through the state. So I think it wasn’t—it had 

never been brought up as far as permitting or licensing before so...and that’s county, we’re actually 

outside of the city limits there. 

Commissioner Bash: Okay. Was there any attempt to get a City license at all for the facility in 

Cornelius ever? 

Ms. Hulsey: I would have to—I would have to check. I believe that before we started the process 

during the last meeting when the cows were the subject at that time, we did have a permit through the 

City. I don't know that it was called a license, and it certainly wasn’t anything commercial. I think we 

had a permit, a business operating permit. But it was something that we applied for during the process, 

the steps that got us to this position last time. 

Commissioner Bash: Okay, thank you. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: [54:25] Okay. Anybody else? 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Okay, thank you very much. So, it doesn’t look like there’s any other 

rebuttal from the Appellant at this time since there was no other testimony against. So, I believe we’re 

going to go ahead and close the public hearing. So, it’s officially closed. [Gavel down] And I will now 

open the deliberation of the appeal of a Community Development Director’s Interpretation (CDI-01-12) 

Denying Horse Stable, Equestrian and Residential Use at 1085 S. Flax Plant Road, File # AP-01-12. So 

does the Planning Commission have any comments, discussion items, or questions? 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr. [55:26]: I do. I have a question there. So, if I’m hearing all the testimony, 

Heidi was basically at this property from January of ’08 through 2010; and then I heard testimony that 


there may have been some other lessees trying to inquire about running some kind of horse equestrian 

on the property. Is that true? Was that part of the testimony I heard? 

Mr. Reynolds [55:56]: Yes, that’s the line of testimony you heard. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay. So do you have any evidence of it, or do we have any evidence— 

anything in writing? 

Mr. Reynolds: Do we have anything in writing. No, we don’t. But there’s people that have come in 

and asked about the stables, the use of it. Mr. Orozco, like he testified, came in and asked about using 

the stables. There are people that came in before him that same summer and asked about the use of the 

stables and our response to those people. But I don't know who they were because we don’t have 

anything in writing—I was saying that that use had in our interpretation expired for lack of use over a 

12-month period. So, I mean—so that’s—yes, that’s correct. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: [56:42] Okay, so what you’re saying is any lessee that came in, there had 

already been 18 months or a year at least past in your mind when the property wasn’t being used for 

equestrian, so, therefore, they weren’t able to lease the property for that same use? 

Mr. Reynolds: I don't know what happened as far as the relationship between the property owner and 

people trying to rent the property. I know what we tell people at the counter as far as what’s permitted 

and what’s not permitted, especially in uses where we know there’s current nonconformity going on. 

We want to be straight up with people about what’s the intentional use of that property. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay, thank you. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Any other questions, comments, or discussion items from the 

Commission? 

Commissioner Bash [57:27]: I guess I would like to hear maybe a comment in regards to that 

commercial aspect one last time since the attorney brought up that that wasn’t something that we—that 

he felt was in the original documentation. I did see a county—it was a tax piece that referred to it as a 

commercial unit. But I just wanted to double check on that 

Mr. Reynolds: [57:58] Right, so when we’ve gone back to research what the use was at the time of 

annexation, which is a point that Staff and City Attorney have been trying to make, because you have to 

establish what the use was at the time of annexation when it was brought into the city. So that’s why I 

attempted to go back and show what the use was identified by the county prior to annexation and then 

what it was being assessed for at ’81-’82 with the tax records was for commercial, and then what it has 

been classified by the county since then as commercial on industrial zone. So in our minds, yes it has 

been a commercial use since prior to annexation into the city. And that’s what has to be maintained in 

order for it to be recognized as nonconforming. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. I’ve got a question that maybe you can help me with that I wish Terry 

had been here. The towing business application, it looks like that was in March and April 2010, that that 

was—he was told that he needed to remove the vehicles that were documented to be on site. It looked 

like he was trying to turn the property into—I mean there were—there were some plans and drawings 

submitted in here, a description of the business. I guess I’m confused why he would do that if there’s 

still the equestrian use and if he knew that that had to be maintained and this would be a conflict. I’m 

looking for some additional information about that time back in April or March 2010, maybe if you can 

enlighten me a little more. 


Mr. Reynolds: Well, the best I can do is point you to the photographs and the application that’s in your 

Staff report. So right, all of a sudden these vehicles start showing up on the property and we notified 

Mr. Emmert that it appears that there’s a new use that’s taking place or something’s going on. And after 

that letter, Marion Kaufmann came in and told us what he was planning to do, that he was going to use 

the property for his towing business, but also was going to do more than just towing and storage. He 

was going to do vehicle dismantling and fabrication, kind of a list of things that are going to be—a little 

narrative that he provided in his application form. So that happened. We started working with Mr. 

Kaufmann. He submitted his application; it was for a change of use that was signed by the property 

owner. There was a little site plan that’s in your application. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Right. 

Mr. Reynolds: A little narrative that describes—I’ll read it for you, “911 Towing and Recovery may or 

may not make changes to add concrete to the floors, my other office—may add other offices, might 

add”— I can’t read this one word. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox I can—I can… 

Mr. Reynolds: —will get permit needed at the time all cars, trucks will be stored inside.” And then he 

has a little drawing near it and the drawing describes use of the arena for towing, fabrication of trailers, 

research, development facilities, dealers auction, inside storage, and nursery dismantling. And then the 

other building is described as a repair shop and towing dismantling. So, he was intending to use both 

buildings; so he submitted his application for that and he started talking with us about the process, what 

he was going to have to do to bring the buildings up to Code, what he was going to have to do to bring 

the site up to Code. But by the end of April, he was moved out. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: And there’s other businesses listed in there like a nursery. There’s—I mean 

there’s—I don't know—ten different businesses that he talked about potentially bringing onto this site, 

which would not—that would not work with the nonconforming use that it has to remain as. 

Commissioner [1:02:27]: [off microphone comment] 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Yeah. 

Mr. Reynolds: Right, it would get into a question of whether you are altering the nonconforming use of 

the site, which is also part of the nonconforming use section of the Code. Nonconforming uses are not 

to be expanded, altered, so there was pretty specific language on that in the section of the Code. But at 

that time, Marion Kaufmann, I don't know what his lease arrangements was, he was moving forward 

like he was going to be establishing this business based on that information that he gave to us. So, that’s 

all I can really tell you. I don't know what happened as far as his relationship or why he left. A lot of 

times you run into situations with older buildings that when you bring a change of use in and then you 

have to bring them up to current Code, it can—starts to get expensive. Like if you have to meet ADA 

requirements, if you have to meet current plumbing or structural requirements or exiting requirements it 

gets expensive. So I don't know if that was his situation or not, but he didn’t follow through with the 

application once he had submitted it. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. That—no, that helps. I just needed to kind of talk that through. So our 

counsel has also brought up the three things that we need to determine. So I’m trying to start a 

discussion. We need to interpret the Community Development Code, what do these sections require. So 

I’m curious from the Commission, are there any clarifications that you need from Staff to understand 


what these sections require? And what are your—do you have comments and things to bring forward 

that we can discuss on that particular one item? I just want to go through these one at a time. 

Commissioner Bash [1:04:29]: It would seem to me that we have other places in Cornelius that are 

nonconforming uses. And I think it’s always—if it’s—always been my understanding that the City 

really doesn’t—you know, wants to have a conforming use put in its place and not something that’s not 

conforming maintained over very long periods of time, it doesn’t help with our downtown area. And so 

the other thing that we need to be thinking about is if we start making exceptions, then we start making 

all kinds of—or could be making all kinds of exceptions. But it’s always been my understanding is that 

a nonconforming use in other parts of the city, when something’s come up, they needed to—when 

the—how do want I phrase it—when the nonconforming use lapsed, then they could no longer use it for 

that piece of—and then it stayed vacant until something—or got to be developed at some point. So I 

think that’s been my understanding as far as the City and the way that these rules were put into place. 

So, you know, that’s kind of where I’m coming from. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, thanks. Does anyone else have anything to add about the Code 

sections and what they require, if there’s any comments or questions about that? Okay. How about the 

second item was what was the use at the time it was annexed. Does everybody feel clear on what the 

use was at the time? So a commercial equestrian-related business? 

Commissioner [1:06:32] [Affirmative response] 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. And the last item is then did the use continue on the property? So I’d 

like to kind of open up a discussion about that, we’ve heard testimony about the use of the property. 

We’ve had evidence brought forth by City Staff. Where is the Commission on this with any comments 

about the use of the property; has it continued? 

Commissioner Hansen [1:07:08] I think—I think if it has, if it could have without a license; if it had 

to have a license to have—I mean you can cut hair out of your house, but if you don’t have a license, is 

it commercial? And you can have horses and events, but if you don’t have a license, is it commercial? I 

think they had stuff going on, but it doesn’t count if there was—if it wasn’t legal because there was no 

water and no license. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Bob, did you have something? 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Not at right this second here. I’m just trying to figure out how I want to— 

give me a second. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Bill? 

Commissioner Bash: I think that there was diminished use, and I think—I agree with my fellow 

Commissioner that it certainly lacked the commercial element in this diminished use. Certainly, the 

house hasn’t been used for—I don't know when, so, that’s one example of diminished use. And 

certainly they used the arena at different points in time, but I think it’s most unfortunate, one, that, you 

know, as a business, you would think that you’d want to make sure that you had a license and that you 

stayed up to date with the community’s requirements. And, I still get very concerned regardless of 

whether people bring in portable water and hand-washing and so forth, the fact that there’s public 

facilities that could have been used that did not have adequate proper water, sanitized water going into 

it. So there’s definitely some use, but very diminished and I don’t think it, in my mind, reaches the 

threshold of where it was. 


Commissioner Starrett [1:09:02]: I’m the same way. I think it’s not been contiguous use. It’s been 

diminished in recent time and that it was never intended to be perpetuated into the future forever. And 

at some point, the owner needs to step up to the plate to either make sure that it’s—meets the original 

guidelines of the nonconforming or sell it, change the use, and get out from under it. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: My only comments are that, you know, obviously I was on the last 

Commission and heard the hearing when that came forward, and I think at the time when we had the 

hearing, I think they used… 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Oh, speak up a little bit. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: I think it was used as it was intended after our last hearing until after Heidi 

had to leave the property. And then I know I personally have gone by that property an awful lot of 

times, but I’ve been laid off early over that time period and I know that all the times that I ever walked 

by that property I never once saw anybody or anything on that property. Now, that doesn’t mean that I 

was there all the time, but I went by there several times. 

Mr. Jacobs [1:10:22]: I hate to interrupt, but just a simple reminder that we need to keep the decision 

based on the evidence that was presented and not outside evidence. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay. Okay. I understand. 

Mr. Jacobs: So that’s certainly something—we don’t need to use that as evidence for our decisionmaking. 



Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay. I’ll shut up. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Yeah. I—I’m with you all as far as the use goes. It is diminished, as the 

keyword that’s going around. And… 

Commissioner Bash [1:10:56] Is? 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Is. 

Commissioner Bash: Is diminished? 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Is diminished use, yeah. So it—it’s—I mean I see Heidi’s, you know, 

testimony. And there’s—and there’s folks saying, yes, they—they’ve used the site, but it hasn’t been 

continuous. Yeah. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: [1:11:14] Well, and I don’t know that it had to be continuous, but, you 

know, just— 

Commissioner [1:11:18]: Isn’t that every year? 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: It had to be noncontinuous for a year. 


Commissioner [1:11:23]: And I’m still stuck on whether or not it counts if it was—it counted one time 

during the year, then it counts for the whole year. So did it count at all, not diminished because 

diminished doesn’t—there’s no rules against them lowering the amount of times it’s used, as long as at 

least one of them counts— 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Mm-hmm. 

Commissioner : —and so I want to decided did at least one of them count as commercial. And I was, 

you know, last time I was here, I saw that the word “commercial” was in all the new paperwork, but not 

the old paperwork. But then, you know, it was brought up that it was back in 1985. So that’s been here 

the whole time, “commercial.” It’s been in here the whole time, and then it’s not—shouldn’t be 

surprised it should be commercial at least once during the year. And so, I don't know how to tell 

whether or not without a license it counts as commercial. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: I agree. 

Unknown [1:12:22]: Because that’s all that matters, but I’m not here to decide whether or not it’s good 

for the community or, there’s just to me one simple rule: had to be commercial at least once during the 

year and I’m sure it was used a few times, but does it count as commercial without a license and water? 

Mr. Jacobs [1:12:43]: Well, if I could clarify for the Commission, I think this goes back to the first 

question about your interpretation of the Code. And if you look at the language—and I’ll just use 

18.135.040 as the example, but remember you’re [inaudible 1:12:52] 040 and 030. But what the law 

says “where a lawful use involving individual buildings and structures or of a structure and premises in 

combination exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of the ordinance codified in this title 

that would not be allowed in the district under the terms of this title, a lawful use may continue so long 

as it remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions.” One of those provisions being that it 

doesn’t last for a period of one year or longer. So, I think the threshold question is what does it mean by 

that existing use at the time it came in; does it have to rise to the level of the number of occasions that it 

was being used at the same level of use that it was when it was brought in, or can you allow it to 

diminish to one time a year and still maintain that same existing use. So, that’s sort of the threshold 

question for you in your interpretation of the Code, as to whether or not you can permit just one time a 

year and that makes it so it doesn’t lapse. Or, does it have to stay at that same level that it was at 

before? 

Commissioner: [1:14:04] I don’t think the landowner was using it. We had one business that used it 

and then another business that used it. The landowner let it go for free for a few times during the lapse, 

so was that a lapse? 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Go for free? Is that what you said? 

Commissioner: [1:14:18]: Pretty much; that’s what he said, he was letting the people use it for 

whatever it cost—for basically nothing, for minimal fees; not really commercial, but, you know, he had 

a use—someone renting the place before, tried to rent it out to the towing company. That didn’t work 

out, so he rented it out again to—for horses. So during that lapse, I don’t think it’s because he wanted it 

to only be used a few times, but because he was looking for a new renter. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Yeah, clearly he was looking for a new renter with all the applications and 

data that’s approved—or put into the file. Any other comments about this item? 


Commissioner Ferrie Jr. [1:15:16]: Well, I guess, the only other comment; you use of the word 

“legal,” so if a person is operating without a license and some of the nuances that businesses would 

legally use to have their business in our community, I guess I would interpret that as not operating 

legally at this—you know, during that timeframe. 

Mr. Jacobs [1:15:44]: And that’s one of the points, if you remember back to Staff’s initial report last 

week, that was one of the points they made in their initial report as to why it wasn’t a continued lawful 

use. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Thank you. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: All right. So if there’s no other discussion items, comments, or 

questions, do I have a motion? 

Commissioner Bash: I move that File AP-01-12, Appeal of the Community Development Directors 

Interpretation Decision CDI-01-12, Denying Horse Stable, Equestrian and Residential Use at 1085 S. 

Flax Plant Road be affirmed based on the findings—the facts, the findings, and the conclusions 

presented in the Staff report and public testimony and evidence of this hearing. 

Commissioner Starrett: I’ll second. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: So I have the motion by Commissioner Bash, seconded by 

Commissioner Starrett. All those in favor say aye. 


Vice President Sheckla-Cox: None opposed. Okay. 

Mr. Snee [1:17:32]: Thank you. 

Commissioner Bash: I guess—and to make one comment in regards to all this, I do believe that the 

organization that’s currently using the land is well-intended, and I think does a great deal of wonderful 

things for the kids, but it’s not the area that we were allowed to look at. So, I don’t want you to feel like 

we were trying to single out your organization in regards to this decision. It was just based on a very 

narrow set of definitions. Thanks. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Agree. Yeah, I definitely ditto that. 

Commissioner [1:18:11]: All in favor? 

[Laughter/off microphone comments] 

Mr. Jacobs: Can I just interrupt? 


Mr. Jacobs: Because we have—the hearing was kept open until today, and there was some additional 

evidence submitted by both the City Staff and by people testifying today, it’s my recommendation that 

you delegate authority to the Vice Chair, or to someone else on the Commission if the Vice Chair is 

going to be unavailable for medical reasons, to go ahead and sign the findings and order. And we 

should give Staff an opportunity, consistent with the motion that was made tonight, just to put it all in 


one document so you’ve got it all together in one document; and then have someone sign it on behalf of 

the Commission, which would then start the ten-day period for someone to appeal this to the City 

Council if they wanted to. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Okay, so we need to have a motion to do that? 

Mr. Jacobs: Yeah, that’s what I’d recommend. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion for that? 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: I make a motion that we appoint somebody to sign the results from the City 

on this subject. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: So specifically myself or— 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Anybody but you, I think. 

Commissioner [1:19:20]: I think—yeah, anybody but you. 

Mr. Jacobs: If you think you’re going to be available, you absolutely can do it. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: So we have to— 

Mr. Jacobs: If you prefer someone else, you can have someone else. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: So we need to figure out who, right? Maybe it could be one of you. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.[1:19:30]: Right? Mr. Bash? 

Commissioner Bash: I wouldn’t mind. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Okay. So you say that in your motion. 

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: I make a motion that Bill Bash is the one that can sign on behalf of the 

Commission the Staff report or the findings and conclusions of tonight. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: And do I have a second? 

Commissioner Starrett: Second. 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Okay. All those in favor say aye. 


Vice President Sheckla-Cox: None opposed. Okay. 

C. OLD BUSINESS – None 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Okay. And Old Business is on the agenda; doesn’t look like there is any. 


D. NEW BUSINESS – None 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: New business? None? All right, so an adjournment. 

E. ADJOURNMENT – 

Vice President Sheckla-Cox: Do I have a motion to adjourn? 

Commissioner Starrett: I’ll make a motion we adjourn the meeting. 

Commission Ferrie Jr.: I’ll second it. 

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: All right. All in favor say aye. 


Vice President Sheckla-Cox: All right, meeting is adjourned. 

Minutes prepared and submitted by ______________________________________________

City Council Packet - Cornelius

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?