City Council Packet - Cornelius

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Question— Robert Snee: Yes. Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: —before you step down there, the last comment you made about there was applications for new equestrian-type business on the property, where is the evidence of that? Mr. Snee: Mr. Emmert’s testimony about people that he had inquired about leasing the property from him went to the City. I don’t have anything—there was no written application made to the City. Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay. So you had a couple lessees that wanted to run some kind of equestrian event, and the City said that they couldn’t do it because it was no longer used for that? Mr. Snee: Correct. Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: Okay. Thank you. Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Just to expand on that, when was that conversation held? Do you know the timeframe? Mr. Snee: Prior to July of 2011; I don't know when those conversations occurred. Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Commissioners, do you have any other questions? Commissioner Ferrie Jr.: That’s it. Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I’d like to ask you a question about—I haven’t heard anything about the water being shut off. And I would like to know if you have any comments to address that topic. Mr. Snee: The only question—thing that I could add to it personally is what I heard from the prior testimony last week, is that there is an existing well on the property that can and does provide water for the horses. Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: And my understanding in reviewing this—and maybe Staff can help me out with this—is that I believe that hasn’t been deemed to be potable water, and that it’s not able to be used, so I think—is that right that the use of that is actually illegal? Am I understanding that right from reading the reports? Mr. Reynolds: Yeah, the State Plumbing Code requires that you have a running, potable source for commercial use. And so, for any commercial activity you’re required to connect to City Services in the City. So… Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: But to have a well, what it would take to actually use that legally? Mr. Reynolds: In the City, you wouldn’t be able to use it for commercial uses. [24:12] Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox Oh, okay. So that’s my concern, is that I don’t know if you have any comments to address that issue or… Mr. Snee: No. R:\Board and Commissions\Planning Commission\CPC July 3 2012 Verbatim Minutes.doc
Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I’m just looking for more information because honestly that’s something for me that hasn’t—I haven’t heard enough testimony or comment from you. Mr. Snee: I wish I had personal knowledge, but all that I can say is I have to concede that from, you know, March of 2010 through July 2011 there was no “commercial” equestrian use of the property. But I don’t think that under the standard of what is considered to be “use” that that is a necessary finding you need to reach. I think it’s a red herring being thrown at you by the Planning Department trying to say that you have to say that the commercial use existed. The case law that I’ve cited in the letter from the Court of Appeals says “no, commercial use does not have to exist”; just a common element of use, i.e. if Mr. Emmert, you know, raised racing horses, he could use that property for his own benefit if he had, you know, to raise horses. It’s not required. It’s a nonconforming use, but it’s not a commercial use, but he’d still be entitled to use the property for those purposes. The fact that he’s just raising them for his own personal pleasure doesn’t mean that the nonconforming use of the property has discontinued and not that he’s no longer allowed to keep horses on that property. It’s just—the logic of that, it just escapes me. Commissioner Hansen: Well, I’m with you kind of. But we have—at the time of annexation, it was commercial—or for commercial purposes. So when it’s annexed, doesn’t it have to remain commercial? And if—I mean that’s… Mr. Snee: No— Commissioner Hansen: That’s where I’m stuck because… Mr. Snee: —it doesn’t mean that it has to, but I think the case law that I’ve cited to you from Herb Hegman [26:03] v. Clackamas County stems from the proposition that it does not need to remain commercial. It specifically state that, “We are unable to agree that cessation of the on premises businesses was an abandonment of the storage use.” We think that more relevant question is whether there is a common use that the various operations shared, whether they were commercial or personal use. Commissioner Bash: I guess going—I’m sorry, not on the commercial end, but just going back to the water piece, I’m not even thinking about it for the horses per se. But for a year and a half, to have no toilet facilities and a place to wash your hands or anything like that and people were using it—some events there seems to be extremely unsanitary, and I’m not certain that’s legal either. Comments on that piece—because it’s— Mr. Snee: As it was testified to, it is very easy to bring water with you for the horses, bring water for personal use. There are antiseptic cleaners that don’t require water for sanitary purposes that are readily available on the market. And the fact that the use during that period of time was intermittent, it wasn’t an everyday or every other weekend situation, but it was such—sufficient so that there was no gap of a 12-month period of time when all equestrian use on that property ceased. The Court of Appeals has also recommended that intermittent use may be sufficient to continue a nonconforming use. That’s the situation that we have here. During that period of time, if there was no commercial operation there was still ongoing equestrian use of the property, albeit under, you know, handicapped circumstances due to, you know, the water being turned off from the City water supply. It’s—to my knowledge, the water from the well is potable for consumption for animals, and, to my knowledge, the animals have been consuming that water to no negative effects. 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 and 46: issued a Metro business license to
Page 47: there was no equestrian use of the
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?