Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
.a <br /> that space was also provided to work on and <br /> repair automobiles. He felt the real question <br /> was not a junkyard question. Willis responded <br /> that the real question was whether or not the use <br /> that was occurring on the property was one that <br /> is allowed in the EC-5 district. Willis <br /> emphasized again that automobile repair and <br /> service stations are allowed in EC-5 designation. <br /> She also noted again that the Planning Staff's <br /> finding is that the junkyard definition best fits <br /> the activity occurring on the site in 1981. <br /> Adjournment time was reached. <br /> MOTION: Allison moved to extend the meeting to complete <br /> the agenda. Seconded by Katz. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> Price noted that she agreed with Allison's <br /> concern that a junkyard was not the only thing <br /> going on at the site in 1981. She felt the issue <br /> was not really being addressed. She asked if <br /> there was a change of structure from the time Mr. <br /> Combs owned the property until he sold it to Mr. <br /> Wilson. Hinkley responded that in 1983 the only <br /> structure on the site was a refreshment stand <br /> and ball field. In 1987-88 there were two mobile <br /> homes on the site. In 1990 application was made <br /> to build a garage to store personal cars but <br /> there were no requests for building inspections. <br /> Hinkley continued that the garage was built and <br /> contained lifts and other equipment. At the <br /> present time there are two mobile structures, a <br /> double-wide and the garage. Mrs. Wilson noted <br /> that the present structures were on the site when <br /> they purchased the property from Mr. Combs. <br /> Price asked about other permits and licenses. <br /> Mrs. Wilson responded that they have the licenses <br /> that are required. <br /> Brown stated that she was confident that the use <br /> was motor vehicle repair and would meet the <br /> criteria for an EC-5 designation. <br /> MOTION: Brown moved that the use was consistent with <br /> automobile maintenance and repair and should <br /> retain the EC-5 designation. Seconded by Reid. <br /> Waddell explained that aerial photographs had <br /> been presented from that time period that <br /> indicated a ball field and some cars were located <br /> on the property. He indicated that he could also <br />