Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
osn <br /> 31 <br /> building issue. In my opinion, the only <br /> issue about which a building is relevant is <br /> the non-conforming use issue. You do not <br /> have to find, in my view, the existence of a <br /> building or the use of a building on this <br /> property in 1981 to change the zoning to EC- <br /> 5. A commercial operation can be without a <br /> structure. The structure and the building <br /> question is only relevant in whether or not <br /> this property would be eligible for non- <br /> conforming use status . Since there was no <br /> building there, it lost whatever opportunity <br /> that it had for non-conforming use status <br /> after two years because of the way the Zoning <br /> Ordinance is written. But, the existence of <br /> a building is immaterial to the decision <br /> whether to change the zoning from AR to EC-5 . <br /> Hinkley noted that were two mobile structures <br /> indicated on the map in 1987. and three mobile <br /> structures in 1991 plus the garage that had <br /> just been built. <br /> Scott asked if the aerial photos are being <br /> used because there are cars in the area today <br /> that did not appear on the earlier photos. <br /> Hinkley responded that the reason the aerial <br /> photos are being used is because they are the <br /> only technical evidence we have of the past. <br /> We reviewed the minutes of the Planning Board <br /> and County Commissioners at that time and <br /> there was no reference to the property at <br /> all. <br /> Jobsis stated that she felt a case could be <br /> made that there were some cars there and some <br /> business operation going on even if the cars <br /> were just being stored for parts. It sounds <br /> like such a small area that if we stick to <br /> the guidelines that you have outlined we <br /> would have to make this so small that the man <br /> could not even operate his business as he is <br /> operating it now. If we decide in his favor, <br /> we would have to decide on such a small <br /> amount of area. Cantrell stated that the <br /> Board would have to decide how much area <br /> would have been given to designate at that <br /> time. <br /> Waddell said that first the Board has to <br /> _= decide whether the folks elevbn years ago <br /> would have decided that it is such a minor <br /> business that it 'should not be zoned EC-5 but <br /> allow to die out. <br />