Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
a <br /> ((SS 27 <br /> September 18, 1992 <br /> Mr, Jim Hinkley <br /> Orange County Planning Department <br /> P.O. Box 8181 <br /> Hillsborough, NC 27278 <br /> Dear Mr. Hinkley:. <br /> I write in regard to the proposed zoning atlas amendment Z-3-92, the property in <br /> question belonging to Mr. Donald Combs. A notice was sent to me regarding the public <br /> hearing that took place on August 24, 1992. During August I was away on business for <br /> an extended period of time, and therefore did not receive the notice until after the <br /> hearing actually took place. Ergo, I wish to take this opportunity to make my opinion On <br /> this issue known to the Planning Department and Board of Commissioners. <br /> I wish to state unequivocally that I am against the proposed change of zoning <br /> from RB to EC-5 on the property in question. My property is adjacent to the property <br /> that Mr. Combs uses as an auto salvage storage area. Mr. Combs currently uses a land <br /> area to store auto salvage that is much larger than the area proposed for zoning change. <br /> When I moved into my house in May 1987, 1 was aware of the presence of approximately <br /> 20 automobiles on Mr. Combs property. Since that time this has grown in number to <br /> several hundred autos. Thus Mr. Combs has been in violation of the current RB zoning <br /> for at least four years. Granting an EC-5 designation would be tantamount to setting a <br /> precedent that rewards ongoing zoning violations. <br /> As I have watched Mr. Combs' auto salvage business grow over the past five <br /> years, my concern has grown over the potential health and environmental hazard. This <br /> auto salvage area is a breeding ground for rats and other vermin. Last year Mr. Combs <br /> cleared of trees and topsoil over an acre of land for auto storage, thus providing a <br /> potential site for auto-derived petrochemical runoff into the water supply. Because I do <br /> not know and have never seen Mr. Combs, I contacted the Planning Department twice to <br /> express these concerns. I was told that this situation would be looked into further. <br /> To my knowledge there is no legal reason why an EC-5 zoning should be <br /> granted, nor any reason to believe that an error was made in assigning the existing RB <br /> zoning. I believe it was suggested that Mr. Combs is merely conti^uing a non^onfcrm1rg <br /> use of the land established by a prior owner. However, there is evidence of both <br /> discontinuation of and expansion of the non-conforming use under Mr. Combs' <br /> ownership. Photographs taken around 1981 indicate there were no autos on the land in <br /> question. I personally have witnessed over the past five years the explosive growth of <br /> autos stored on this property. This evidence suggests that the nonconforming use <br /> should not be continued under the current RB zoning, and certainly does not suppport a <br /> change to EC-5. <br /> An EC-5 zoning would open this piece of land to a plethora of potential future <br /> uses that are inconsistent with the agricultural and rural residential nature of this area. If <br /> Mr. Combs is allowed to continue his business at all, it should be under the current RB <br /> zoning with a variance clearly specifying the nature of the business and size restrictions <br /> on the enclosed and outside storage. The outside storage area should be more in line <br /> with earlier use estimates as opposed to the currently proposed area (1.84 acres), or the <br /> even larger currently used area. It is my feeling that these restrictions are necessary <br />