City Council Packet - Cornelius

More documents

Recommendations

Info

July 27 th , was 2011. The letter was—the City was writing a response to telephone conversation between City Staff and Mr. Emmert about the cessation of equestrian use at the stables of Cornelius. The August 9, 2011 letter was an informational Code enforcement letter from the City about Ivan Orozco’s horse stable and equestrian business moving onto the property. The City Development Code requires that City Staff do a two-letter process, where we are required to send out an informational letter when a noncompliance issue is taking place, and then a warning letter is the second letter that goes out. So, this was the first letter. And then, in response to that, Mr. Emmert submitted a response letter to the City and dated it November 7 th . The City also responded to that letter. In conclusion, the City does not permit horse stable use, equestrian use, and/or residential use or all three in the General Industrial (M-1) district. The City has demonstrated that at the time the property became subject to the City Code, it was a commercial horse stable with a caretaker’s residence. These uses were recognized at annexation as temporary preexisting nonconforming uses. The Appellant has not provided substantial evidence to outweigh the documentation presented by the City that the commercial horse stable, equestrian use and caretaker’s residence were discontinued and ceased for a period of 18 months. Therefore, all uses on the site must now conform to the City Code and the General Industrial (M-1) Zone. Thank you. Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions for Staff at this time? Commissioner Bash: I just have one. Just want to make certain again, that I’m clear. The water was turned off in July—sorry, January 2010 I believe, and stayed shut off until July 2011. Is that correct? Mr. Reynolds: There’s two meters. One was, I think, disconnected in June of 2010 and stayed off until July of 2011. There’s a second meter that was off for a period of about four years. Commissioner Bash: Even longer? Mr. Reynolds: Even longer, yes. Commissioner Bash: Thank you. Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox Okay. Are there other questions? Okay, at this time, the Appellant may now present any additional testimony to the Commission. Thank you. So, did you want to come forward? Robert Snee: 13140 SE Cooper St. Portland, OR 97236. Sure. I have prepared copies for each of you. Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox Okay, great. Robert Snee: I’ve already provided a copy to the City Attorney and to Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds: Thank you. Robert Snee: For the record, I’m Robert Snee, attorney representing Terry Emmert in this matter, the owner of the property. To begin with, I’d say I’m quite dismayed at the extent to which the County Staff and Community Director seems to be going out of his way to try to end the equestrian use on this property. Again, the surveillance of the property photographs which were taken, which I already stated the fact that they were not taken on a monthly basis, but only over a five month period out of the 18 months that their photographs were taken, one day and sometimes two days of each month. Those were taken by Mr. Reynolds apparently, and was his interpretation that his evidence supported the fact that R:\Board and Commissions\Planning Commission\CPC July 3 2012 Verbatim Minutes.doc
there was no equestrian use of the property for an 18-month period. If you look at the exhibits that are attached to my letter here, as well as in every prior decision, by the City, by the Planning Director, by the Planning Commission pertaining to this property, not once is the word “commercial” ever used to describe or define the use on the property. It’s only equestrian use of the property. The application was for a riding stable and an arena, equestrian use of the property. When this Commission reestablished in 2008 that nonconforming use existed on the property, they referred to it as equestrian use of the property; no limitation that it has to be commercial. And, in fact, there is no such limitation in the use of the property; it does not have to be a commercial use of the property, just a equestrian use of the property has to be maintained and not be discontinued for a period of 12 months or longer. As I pointed out in the letter that I’ve provided to you, the Court of Appeals has recognized that the cessation of a business where storage was a primary—or a common element of use in property, the fact that a commercial business ceased did not terminate or discontinue the nonconforming use of that property, so long as it was still used for storage purposes, which is the identical situation to what we have here. During the 18 month—less than 18 month period of time, because there’s testimony that there were still horses stored there—you’ve got the letter from Jennifer Blake, [18:24] who testified or submitted earlier that her horses were still stabled at the premises through the end of February 2010. You’ve got testimony of Ms. Hulsey, Ms. Matesi, neighbors across the street that never was there a 12-month period of time that equestrian use of the property was not occurring. The photographs and the recommendation of the Findings by the District Director are not substantiated by the evidence, and in fact, they are refuted by the evidence that has been presented to you. And it is the your decision to make a decision on the record de novo without giving any deference whatsoever to the prior decision made by the Community Director. You have to make the decision on your own based on your review of all of the evidence that’s been submitted to you. As I pointed out the Staff exhibits, there were two photographs taken in March of 2010, two different dates in April of 2010. There was a memo in September of 2010 with no photos attached, photos taken in December of 2010, January of 2011, February of 2011, and then not until July of 2011. That does not document the fact that there were no horses or equestrian use on the property throughout that 18-month period time that they claimed. The crux of the matter is that the testimony that’s been given to you that you’ve heard was submitted to the Community Director so he could make his interpretations, presented evidence that there was never a 12-month period of time that equestrian use of this property ceased. It’s—as I indicated in my April 6 th letter that was submitted with the initial application requesting the interpretation. At no time was there ever a request for a review of the fact that this nonconforming use needed to be reestablished. It had already been legally established before you on numerous occasions, most recently as 2008. There was a four part conclusion that when that application was made for a Community Director’s interpretation that it was going to be a denial of the continued use of the property and that we’re going to need to be before you making this appeal. There should have been no reason that the application should have had to have been made in the first place, nor for the applicant and Mr. Emmert to go through the expense of filing an application for an interpretation and the subsequent appeal that we're here before you today. Let me just reiterate. Back during last week testimony of Mr. Emmert, I’m just reminding you of the fact that prior to the current applicant leasing the property from Mr. Emmert, Mr. Emmert testified that he had two different potential lessees of the property come to the City to inquire about it. They were informed that horse use was no longer allowed on the property. This was well before the year period of time of any alleged discontinued equestrian use of the property. So I just—again, the only thing I can say in closing is I’m dismayed at the extent to which the Community Director seems to be going out of his way to deny that this property is—equestrian use continue on the property as a valid pre-existing nonconforming use that has not been discontinued. R:\Board and Commissions\Planning Commission\CPC July 3 2012 Verbatim Minutes.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 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: issued a Metro business license to
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?