City Council Packet - Cornelius

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