11/26/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

B. Appeal, Zoning Board of Appeals Denial of Permission to Maintain Materials Storage Facility at 2136 Rocky Lane (Meltebeke) - Postponed from November 5, 1973 Building officials ruled use of property at 2136 Rocky Lane for storage of building . materials illegal. Bob Meltebeke, owner of the property, appealed the ruling to the Zoning Board of Appeals (October 4, 1973) where staff's position was upheld that the use could not be considered nonconforming and was in violation of the Code. Letter from Malcolm Scott, attorney, representing Mr. Meltebeke, was read' appeal- ing the decision of the Zoning Board to the Council. Public hearing was opened. Malcolm Scott, 1170 Pearl Street, said the appellant's position was that the present use of the property was a lawful nonconforming use and could be lawfully terminated only by establishing an amortization period in accordance with the Code. He felt that was the only question to be considered. He presented a chronological history of ownership and use of the property prior to and after annexation to the City, Claiming that although ownership did change, the use did not. He further claimed that the primary building on the property was a warehouse for construction materials and that its use constituted the primary use of that property; it was not an ac- cessory building. An affidavit signed by former owner of the property was read attesting to continuity of use of theproperty for stroage facilities. Mr. Scott referred to City Attorney's memo of August 10, 1973 in which it was concluded that present use cannot be considered a previously existing nonconforming use, and asked for the facts upon which that opinion was based. The City Attorney's office, e he said, had concurred in appellant's position that continuity of use was the question to be considered rather than continuity of ownership when it was sug- gested that division of the property constituted a disruption of the use. He maintained there was no validity to the argument that the storage building was a secondary or accessory building simply because there was a house nearby. His title search, he said, indicated the property is separate and distinct from any other. He urged the Council to reverse the Zoning Board's decision, uphold the appellant's position that the use of the property was a lawful nonconformng use, and that that use could be terminated only under amortization provisions of the Code. He passed to the Council pictures of the property and copy of the prior owner's affidavit. John Fulton, 2135 Rocky Lane, felt the nonconforming use was not only disrupted by change of ownership but also by change in dimensions of the property. He said the property is being used as a staging area for a citywide type of construction program. Mr. Fulton thought an affidavit from other previous owners of the prop- I erty with regard to use of the building would be pertinent. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Councilman Murray reported several contacts he had with persons intereste~ in . this issue. However, he felt those contacts would not impair his impartiality, so he would not abstain from voting unless the Council advised to the contrary. Councilwoman Campbell asked how often nonconforming permits were reviewed by staff. Mr. Saul answered that when the 1968 Code was adopted owners of major non- conforming commercial or industrial uses operating in main buildings in residential areas were informed of the minimum amortization period of five years, maximum 40 years. The Planning Commission did initiate a series of hearings in 1968-69, but the press of other business prevented continuing the process at that time. Use of the property at 2136 Rocky Lane was not classified as nonconforming under that inventory. Councilman Murray presented to staff a letter he received regarding the issue but which he had not read. Councilwoman Beal asked whether the City was obligated to notify owners of non- conforming uses that those operations would be under review and a phase-out period scheduled. Manager explained that property were informed of nonconforming uses when the 1968 Code was adopted, but scheduling of amortization dates was not pursued other than on those mentioned by Mr. Saul. However, this storage facility was not considered nonconforming at that time so the owner was not notified. Manager said it appeared the question in this issue was primarily legal and wondered - whether the legal opinion presented to the Zoning Board was sufficient or whether Council would want to consider further information or request further consideration of the legal opinion,before making a decision. Mr. Long said the August 10, 1973 memo from the Attorney's office was limited to the facts of the question that was put - whether the present storage of construction materials on the property should be deemed a nonconforming or illegal use. He felt that waht needed to be established was the actual use of the property and how it related to the Code - the appellant must show that the operation falls within the criteria that would allow it to remain. If no main building is involved, the non- "'341 11/26/73 - 5