Minutes - 19870824 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.;~ ~' Planning Board Member Eddleman asked the County Attorney if the applicant's statement of justification which stated that the ordinance requires that the EC-5 district must be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned townships .was correct. Gledhill responded he would pro- vide that answer in time for the Planning Board meeting. Bob HaQeman~, Attorney for Autowerks, presented the following background for Autowerks:- This past spring the .owners of Autowerks decided to improve and increase the size of the auto repair shop. It was then found that the property was zoned R-1 rather than EC-5. Mr. Hageman noted that the three reasons given for denial by..the Planning Staff are true statements and if it were not for the unusual history .of this case, there would be no question but to deny the rezoning request. He continued that those three statements by themselves ignore -,the history which is very important to this matter, Mr. Hageman stated that Mr. Miller and Mr. Dancy were operating Autowerks prior to the zoning of Hillsborough Township in September 1981. He noted that prior to Autowerks another auto repair shop was in residence for approximately a year and prior to that time, the building did contain a convenience store. He continued that Mr. Miller and Mr. Dancy do not own the property now nor did they own it in 1981, so they did not receive notification of the zoning classification in process. He read from the Zoning Ordinance Article 4.2.12 b) Application Criteria: "This district will be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned townships and pre- viously zoned commercial property located in areas not designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Land Use Plan. This designation shall only be applied to property used for existing commercial at the time of application of this ordinance." He stated that the .intent of the Commis- sioners in 1981 was that the classification of EC-5 be applied in a non- discretionary manner once it was determined that those existing commercial uses were not in an activity node. Mr. Hageman stated that he felt one of the reasons for Autowerks not being zoned EC-5 was the fact that the tract of ].and upon which it is located lies in Chapel Hill Township as well as Hillsborough Township. He noted that with the possibility of different planning personnel working on the two different townships and the undeveloped portion of the property being in Chapel Hill Township, it was possible that it was assumed the property was all R-1. He noted that the Duke Power easement was all that was on the portion in Chapel Hill Township. He continued that he felt the incorrect zoning was simply a case of the property being overlooked. In regard to the idea that the property should be non-conforming, Mr. Hageman noted the following: (1) According to his reading, EC-5 had to be applied to existing commercial properties not in an activity node; (2) Every existing commercial use along Highway 86 in 1981 except Autowerks was given a commercial classification; (3) If the intent was to make Autowerks a non-conforming use, why did it not appear on the May 14, 19.81 memorandum from the Planning Staff to the Planning Board. Mr. Hageman requested that the Planning Board recommend to the Board of Commissioners to honor Autowerks rezoning request. This request is consistent with the comprehensive plan although the area is not identified as an activity node, since the plan clearly contemplated EC-5 classifications outside of activity nodes. They also believe that this rezoning would not, in any way be a violation of the comprehensive plan. - -~~