Agenda - 05-31-1995 - D1(c) - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2M 7 such concern about the business being there, but, that the expansion had caused some trees _' to be cut down. Waddell noted that there was another citizen who had stated that because of zoning laws, he had not expanded his business and he felt he was suffering by obeying the law. Hinkley noted that there are three or four comparable cases at this time and whatever decision the Board makes is precedent setting. Three of those uses are expanding considerably at this time. Scott noted that there was also testimony from several people.. at the public hearing that there is a real need for yards such as this. Gray asked if Hinkley was reasonably sure that the Planning Department's investigation is completely accurate from 1979 and that to the best of your knowledge that from what you have been able to find out there were no vehicles stored there, not withstanding what other people say, human nature being what it is. Hinkley responded that there were five affidavits that state there were cars stored there but did not say there was a commercial business. Reid noted that was the "catch" . Hinkley continued that when the parcel of land was bought in 1983 there was no commercial business there. The principle use was recreational purposes. Cantrell asked the County Attorney to speak to the issue. Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney made the following comments: There are two ideas I have that may not help you but will add to the discussion. One of those ideas is that there is only one basis in the Zoning Ordinance to rezone this property EC-5. The fact that there may be a need for this kind of operation does not have anything to do with your discussion tonight, because in the Comprehensive Plan there's no activity node in this area; so, it doesn't