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

Browse Search

0SS 11 Cantrell asked if Reid was prepared to stay with the findings that he made at the previous Planning Board meeting and the response was that he certainly was. x. �• Burklin asked Reid about the number of vehicles on the site at the time he was there and where they were located. Reid responded that he did not know the location of the vehicles and in review of the previous meeting minutes it was noted that he had stated there were 25 to 30 cars at the site. Cantrell noted that this figure was in line with that stated by Dr. Noonan in her letter. Eidenier noted that she did not feel any of the additional information and affidavits have substantially changed anything that the Board discussed at length at the last meeting. Gray noted that some of the letters did not address the question before the Board, but, rather, were character references for Mr. Combs. Jobsis agreed that the new documents did not change the issues the Board had voted on previously. Hoecke stated that he felt the evidence would always be mixed in such an issue, but, that he felt that the evidence weighed in favor of there having been a business on the site prior to 1981. He continued that the photographic evidence was "soft" at best. Gray stated that he felt some of the evidence did indicate that there were vehicles stored there, but he did not feel that there had been any substantial evidence to show that at the time the ordinance was passed there was an "existing commercial operation there" . Cantrell stated that she felt there had been evidence but the question is whether or not it is persuasive. Waddell stated that he would .agree with that view. While there was evidence that the cars existed on the lot, it was still questionable whether or not it was a commercial business. He felt it was the task of the Planning Board to go back to that date and determine if the question had come up at that time, would the Planning