Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
27 <br /> Hoecke asked if we disbelieve those people <br /> who say there were. Hinkley responded that <br /> the Board would have to decide that. He <br /> could only give the evidence. <br /> Scott stated that he could not accept <br /> Hinkley's evidence because he could not see <br /> anything that Hinkley pointed out on the <br /> aerial photos. Hoecke stated that he had <br /> seen many aerial photographs and that those <br /> presented were junk. Hinkley responded that <br /> he could provide the originals since they <br /> were provided by the ASCS office. Hoecke <br /> noted again they were very poor evidence. <br /> Reid stated that he was not arguing with the <br /> photographs but that his point was if there <br /> were junked cars on the property prior to <br /> 1981, was it a business? Hinkley responded <br /> that, according to the Zoning Ordinance, if <br /> there was no building on the site on the <br /> effective date of the ordinance, then within <br /> two years the use of the property would have <br /> to conform to the list of permitted uses for <br /> the zoning district. Reid noted that he did <br /> not feel a building was needed to assure that <br /> a "junkyard" was in operation. Other Board <br /> members 'expressed the same concern of whether <br /> a building was what determined whether or not <br /> a commercial operation was in place. <br /> Scott expressed concern that it was not being <br /> made clear what the Planning Board was to <br /> make a decision on, whether a junkyard was in <br /> operation in 1981 or whether the building <br /> constructed in 1991 was the issue. Hinkley <br /> responded that the building constructed in <br /> 1991 was a garage built to store Mr. Combs ' <br /> personal automobiles. It has since become a <br /> commercial operation. He noted again that <br /> there was no building on the site in 1981. <br /> Scott asked if there were junked cars stored <br /> under the trees on the lot in 1979, would Mr. <br /> Combs be granted the EC-5 designation. <br /> Hinkley responded that he would not. Scott <br /> asked why. Hinkley responded because there <br /> was no structure on the parcel of land on the <br /> date of adoption of the ordinance. Scott <br /> responded that was what the* Board was trying <br /> to establish, was the deciding factor the <br /> lack of a building and Reid stated he had the <br /> SAM e question as Scott. Scott continued that <br />