Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
84 <br /> response was neighbors represented by attorney, <br /> Grainger Barrett. <br /> Katz noted that there is a land use category in <br /> the Zoning Ordinance of motor vehicle repair <br /> garage that is defined, but it is not permitted <br /> in any zoning district. Willis agreed, noting <br /> that it is defined in the Zoning Ordinance but is <br /> not included in the permitted use table. Any use <br /> which is not explicitly permitted by the Zoning <br /> Ordinance, it is prohibited. Willis continued <br /> that is an issue that will be reviewed to try to <br /> determine if it was an omission or if it was <br /> intentional when the ordinance was adopted. Katz <br /> noted that he felt it was not intentional, <br /> however, he found it very difficult to make a <br /> decision since he felt that motor vehicle repair <br /> garages should be allowed in some areas. <br /> Willis pointed out that, regardless of which <br /> districts the repair garage may or not be allowed <br /> in, the primary use of the property was found <br /> by the staff to be a junkyard with some of the <br /> other activities being accessory uses. <br /> Reid asked if this case could be compared to <br /> the McBroom case, and, whether Staff would have <br /> made make recommendations to bring it into <br /> compliance if it had not already been challenged <br /> in court. Willis responded that there was a lot <br /> of difference between this case and the McBroom <br /> case; particularly, that the McBroom case is <br /> located in an activity node where commercial <br /> zoning is consist with the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> Reid expressed concern that the case had <br /> previously been presented that, if it could be <br /> proven a business had existed, it could remain in <br /> an EC-5 designation. Willis responded that the <br /> main question that Staff had concentrated on was <br /> whether or not there was some kind of business on <br /> the lot. In reviewing the case now, it would <br /> have been better for Staff to look more closely <br /> at the alleged use category as well. Reid <br /> continued that the information presented thus <br /> far, still indicated to him that a business was <br /> in effect with the zoning effect. Willis <br /> responded that the critical issue is whether the <br /> use is permitted in an EC-5 district. <br /> Allison asked if, at the time the rezoning was <br /> requested, it had been proven that body work was <br /> done at the site, would that have made a <br /> difference in the Staff's recommendation. Willis <br /> responded that the decision made by the Planning <br />