City Council Packet - Cornelius

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longer—and was no longer valid.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—
R:\Board and Commissions\Planning Commission\CPC June 26 2012 Verbatim Transcript.doc