City Council Packet - Cornelius

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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. R:\Board and Commissions\Planning Commission\CPC June 26 2012 Verbatim Transcript.doc
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. R:\Board and Commissions\Planning Commission\CPC June 26 2012 Verbatim Transcript.doc
Page 1 and 2: CITY OF CORNELIUS CORNELIUS CITY CO
Page 3 and 4: AGENDA REPORT September 17, 2012 To
Page 5 and 6: AGENDA REPORT September 17, 2012 To
Page 7 and 8: City of Cornelius Agenda Report To:
Page 9 and 10: C. PUBLIC HEARING 1. APPEAL: Appeal
Page 11 and 12: the city, it was brought in by Royl
Page 13 and 14: Zone and is prohibited by City Code
Page 15 and 16: Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Oh, okay. M
Page 17 and 18: chance to practice because we can't
Page 19 and 20: Mr. Stone: Not unlike the three peo
Page 21 and 22: so—but I think during that time t
Page 23 and 24: money that we received off of this
Page 25: espect, if you go back and look at
Page 29 and 30: Mr. Semm: Approximately 15 years ag
Page 31 and 32: flies, the loud music. When it goes
Page 33 and 34: usiness license for a horse stable
Page 35 and 36: Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I think we'
Page 37 and 38: Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: So the next
Page 39 and 40: [Off microphone comments] Vice Chai
Page 41 and 42: Ms. Heuer: This whole thing here, y
Page 43 and 44: CITY OF CORNELIUS PLANNING COMMISSI
Page 45 and 46: issued a Metro business license to
Page 47 and 48: there was no equestrian use of the
Page 49 and 50: Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I’m just
Page 51 and 52: you know, did—was the use continu
Page 53 and 54: Mr. Orozco: Correct. Commissioner B
Page 55 and 56: don’t know what the word would be
Page 57 and 58: as my involvement. And mostly it wa
Page 59 and 60: Mr. Reynolds: Well, the best I can
Page 61 and 62: Commissioner Starrett [1:09:02]: I
Page 63 and 64: Commissioner Ferrie Jr. [1:15:16]:
Page 65: D. NEW BUSINESS - None Vice Preside

City Council Packet - Cornelius

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?