Agenda - 08-24-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

September 1981. Best continued, asking the difference between an EC-5 designation and a non-conforming. Szymik responded that EC-5 is a zoning classification which permits the change of use or expansion, and as non- conforming the garage would not be allowed to expand. Planning Board Member Yuhasz asked if there would be a problem in rezoning the property to EC-5 at this time. Szymik responded that the procedure would be to identify that an error had been made in the original zoning, and EC-5 zoning should have been applied to the property at that time. Szymik stated that the work maps indicated there was a non- residential use on the property at the time that the 1981 zoning changes were being prepared, but they did not indicate the intent in regard to the property. Planning Board Member Best asked why the applicant desired a rezoning. Szymik responded that with an EC-5 zoning classification, there expassannoppdrbham4p dd use. Planning Board Member Pilkey asked what the previous use of the structure was. Szymik responded that it was previously a convenience store. Planning Board Member Eddleman asked the County Attorney if the applicant's statement of justification which stated that the ordinance requires that the EC-5 district must be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned townships was correct. Gledhill responded he would pro- vide that answer in time for the Planning Board meeting. Bob Hageman, Attorney for Autowerks, presented the following background for Autowerks: This past spring the owners of Autowerks decided to improve and increase the size of the auto repair shop. It was then found that the property was zoned R-1 rather than EC-5. Mr. Hageman noted that the three reasons given for denial by the Planning Staff are true statements and if it were not for the unusual history of this case, there would be no question but to deny the rezoning request. He continued that those three statements by themselves ignore the history which is very important to this matter. Mr. Hageman stated that Mr. Miller and Mr. Dancy were Autowerks prior to the zoning of Hillsborough Township ains ptemberer1981. He noted that prior to Autowerks another auto repair shop was in residence for approximately a year and prior to that time, the building did contain a convenience store. He continued that Mr. Miller and Mr. Dancy do not own the property now nor did they own it in 1981, so they did not receive notification of the zoning classification in process. He read from the Zoning Ordinance Article 4.2. 12 b) Application Criteria: "This district will be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned townships and pre- viously zoned commercial property located in areas not designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Land Use Plan. This be applied to property used for existing commercial gnatlothehatimenof application of this ordinance. " He stated that the intent of the Commis- sioners in 1981 was that the classification of EC-5 be applied in a non- discretionary manner once it was determined that those existing commercial uses were not in an activity node. Mr. Hageman stated that he felt one of the reasons for Autowerks not being zoned EC-5 was the fact that the tract of land upon which it is located lies in Chapel Hill Township as well as Hillsborough Township. He noted that with the possibility of different lannin g on the two different townships and the undeveloped in neo the fotel roperty being in Chapel Hill Township, it was possible that it was assumed the property was all R-1. He noted that the Duke Power easement was all that