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

Browse Search

80 8 the issues and the definitional issues and not get sidetracked by the pleas for personal sympathy. In answer to a question from a Planning Board member, Mr. Lloyd said he was not sure he discussed the uses in great detail with the discussion he had with Mr. Collins and Mr. Gledhill. Although he thinks the presumption among them was they were talking about something that would allow continuation of Mr. Wilson' s business. What they focused on were possibilities that would allow him to continue the business for a finite period of time and at the end of that time, the use would stop. Geof Gledhill said, so that everyone would know the context in which these discussions took place, this case was referred to arbitration and mediation. They spent about a half day in mediation in an attempt to reach an agreement on how to resolve this situation. Mr. Lloyd' s recollection of the offer is accurate. It was to allow Mr. Wilson to continue his present use of his property for some period of time. Geof Gledhill said that any proposed mediation agreement would have had to come back to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration if there had been an agreement and there wasn't. It has nothing to do with whether the property ought to be or ought not to be rezoned. Grainger Barrett said that the context of this basic issue is a question of whether there was a manifest error in the Zoning Ordinance when zoning was applied to this township back in 1981 . He introduced into the record a copy of the building permit application of 1990 which Mr. Lloyd referred to above. He outlined the events that led up to the time the building permit was issued. He also introduced into evidence certain pages of a deposition of Mr. Wilson in which he states four or five times that he discussed before the rezoning decision with Mr. Combs the sale of this property. In his testimony at the Planning Board at the public hearing, he said this property was used for storing junked vehicles . That is all he said this property was ever used for. He thinks that this kind of testimony is less than substantial when it is given to the Board of County Commissioners in this context tonight. In Mr. Reid' s testimony, the reference he makes are that all he ever saw out there were junked cars . He makes clear on page 87 that Mr. Martin, Sr. , actual garage was on Mt. Carmel Church Road where parts for the repair came from the area in question. He agrees with Mr. Smith that there is a definitional issue that the Board will have to confront. He contrasted the definition of a junk yard with that of a body shop. He suggested that working on hotrods was a hobby and not a commercial activity of the type being talking about. Commissioner Willhoit made reference to page 101 of the agenda, affidavit signed by Mr. Martin in 1984, item 5 where he says he stored numerous used junked vehicles on the six acres for the purpose of repairing vehicles and asked for clarification on how that fits. Geof Gledhill said that Judge Stevens' view was that it did not provide evidence that there was bodyshop work being done on this property. The problem with noncomforming use is complicated. There cannot be a noncomforming junkyard use because under Orange County's Zoning Ordinance, a junkyard is a special use and Orange County does not recognize special uses as noncomforming. Therefore, there is no way to make this use noncomforming under the County' s Zoning Ordinance.