BC 1995 06 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

469 reported the business has changed greatly in the last two years, including signage and backfilling. Also, Mr. Tatum questioned the need for a permit in order ~o grade more than one acre of property. In response to a question by Chairman Barnhart regarding previous zbning of the property, Mr. Newton explained that the benchmark is 1993. The property was zoned ARRprior to December 20, 1993. A member of the audience questioned the 1993 benchmark date, stating he had been informed by Mr. Jonathan Marshall that the date was 1982 and that the business could not get any bigger than it was in 1982. Mr. Newton introduced himself and explained that zoning came into place in 1982. However, he stated the activity the Board is currently looking at in terms of a scope issue deals with the growth Of the business since the effective date of the current ordinance in 1993. Mr. Newton stated that perhaps Mr. Marshall was looking at the issue of whether the business was grandfathered in as a pre-existing non-conforming use. However, he explained that the current issue is non-conforming use and that is the scope issue before the Board at this time. Mr. Bowling complained that he was hearing "perhaps", "maybe" and "I think" from Mr. Newton. He stated in his opinion there should be better defined laws and established guidelines. Also, he questioned the possibility of oPening the door to further problems if the rezoning is approved. Mr. Tim Feeney identified himself as a resident of the Britley Subdivision, representative for the Patton Corporation which owns Bradford Park, and an independent builder in both subdivisions. He questioned which date, 1982 or 1993, should be used for determining the scope of the business. Mr. Feeney stated in his opinion that Mr. Plott should have to meet established guidelines and that the County should make sure he abides by those rules and regulations. According to Mr. Feeney, the business has gotten much bigger since 1982 and that the scope of the business has expanded greatly since 1993. The residents do not want to put Mr. Plott out of business; however, they feel the size and scope of the business is greater than it should be for that area. Mr. Feeney expressed concern regarding future commercial zoning, stating it would not be fair for him not to be able to have commercial property in Britley if Mr. Plott's property is zoned commercial. In conclusion, Mr. Feeney stated the County needs to establish where Mr. Plott's business was in 1993 and prohibit any further expansion. Mr. Newton advised the Board that if it decides to deny the request, the County will have to determine the issue of the scope of the business in 1993. He also discussed the burden of proof issue. Commissioner Olio-Mills stated the issue at hand is rezoning, not the scope of the business. Chairman Barnhart pointed out that if the special use rezoning is approved, the Board can place conditions on the rezoning. However, if the rezoning is denied, the issue of the scope of the business must be decided. Mr. Brad Tisdale, new property owner at the corner of the Old Colony Subdivision and Robinson Church Road, opposed the rezoning. Stating he had moved there because it was a residential area, Mr. Tisdale expressed concern about future commercial districts in the area. He advised that Mr. Plott's operational records from December 1993 to the present would show the vast growth which has occurred since that time and provide an idea of which way the business is planning to go over the next four or five years. Mr. Ray Greene, resident of 10075 Robinson Church Road since 1988, opposed the rezoning, stating he had moved to the area because it was a rural, residential area. He stated that real estate agents in Harrisburg had informed him that the commercial rezoning would negatively impact the value of the homeowner's property. He stated he had watched the business grow and questioned how the Board could justify not zoning other property in the area as commercial if it approves the rezoning for Mr. Plott. Commissioner Niblock stated in his opinion the property owners would be better served to have the property rezoned than to leave the non-conforming use.