Agenda - 09-05-1995 - IX-A - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7 79 - Commissioner Crowther asked if Mr. Martin had a business license and Mr. ` Combs did not know. Mr. Smith, attorney for Mr. Wilson asked if they used cutting tools to cut apart cars and Mr. Combs said yes . Mr. Combs was asked if he had receipts and records when he owned it and he said yes . Mr. Robert Smith, attorney for Mr. Wilson, said he was at the public hearing at which the property was eventually rezoned for Mr. Combs . At that hearing they focused basically on the salvage yard because that is what Mr. Combs was doing at the time. He honestly felt that there was sufficient evidence that cars had also been worked on but obviously the judge felt different. Part of the problem is that there is an unusual set of definitions in the Zoning Ordinance. There is a category called motor vehicle maintenance and repair which sounds like the more traditional working on cars but is somewhat defined more like a body shop. There is another category in the Zoning Ordinance which sounds more like the traditional working on cars which says motor vehicle repair garage which includes major mechanical repairs, engine overhaul and transmission work. For some reason, that is not in the permitted use table. He feels that it was probably intended to be part of the EC-5 but it was not. Mr. Reid has mentioned that he may have receipts which may prove some of this activity. He also talked with Mr. Reid' s brother who stated he was also familiar with this property. He will submit testimony later either by affidavit or letter. Larry Reid said that his brother Michael and a friend David Nickinson both had hotrods or race cars and Mr. Martin' s son was also a race driver and they swapped parts pulling parts off of one car and putting on another. He is almost positive that he has the receipts. He had several parts replaced on his car. He said that he guarantees that money changed hands. He was asked if his brother could have swapped a part and Mr. Reid said no. He paid for some parts but he is not sure which parts . Barton Lloyd said that he owns land adjoining to what was then Mr. Combs' operation. There seems that there are two or three basic issues in question at the moment. One is the definitional issue of did the activities alleged to have taken place on the property up to and since 1981 constitute what is required to justify an EC-5 zoning. Before Mr. Wilson purchased the property, Mr. Lloyd made it clear to the real estate agent who listed this property that he intended to appeal the rezoning decision. His concern is that the piece of property that he developed and invested in adjoins a piece of land which, by consensus of an attorney representing either Mr. Combs or the previous owner Mr. Martin and the staff of the Planning Department of Orange County, was a noncomforming use. He was motivated to file the complaint only when Mr. Combs clear-cut an additional acre of land and through a barter arrangement had the topsoil striped in return for the grading and clearing of the land and proceeded to fill up this additional acre with more motor vehicles. He summarized some of his concerns with the original rezoning which was based largely on the testimony from Mr. Combs. It is in the record from previous hearings and meetings that Mr. Combs operated his business lacking the appropriate licensing to do so. To the best of his knowledge, he never filed to pay a business tax in Orange County. There is no public record that he operated a business there at all. He mentioned a building permit in which Mr. Combs stated that the structure was estimated to cost $2, 000. Mr. Lloyd said that he hopes all parties concerned, the Planning Board and the Commissioners will remain focused on