City Council Packet - Cornelius

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 R:\Board and Commissions\Planning Commission\CPC June 26 2012 Verbatim Transcript.doc
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 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 and 26: espect, if you go back and look at
Page 27 and 28: The City is referring to a section
Page 29 and 30: Mr. Semm: Approximately 15 years ag
Page 31: flies, the loud music. When it goes
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?