City Council Packet - Cornelius

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