Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

?) ;:~-") H . 1\:'0') December 10, 20071 Volume 11 No. 23 order to enforce its police power, any alternative legal remedy is ignored and irreparable harm is presumed." Further, the county had a "clear le- gal right" to the injunction because Dispoto had continually violated the county's zoning codes. Finally, the trial court could properly find that the public had an interest in seeing that the county's ordinances and per- mit requirements were observed. Dispoto argued that the county violated an FCC regulation requir- ing state and local governments to make reasonable accommodations for antenna structures related to amateur service communications. But the evidence presented at trial court supported the finding that Dispoto was using the tower for commercial radio purposes. Even if the tower was for amateur radio use, the FCC regulations provided that local gov- ernments did not have to make accommodations for amateur antenna structures wh~re the structures were prohibited by residential subdivi- sion covenants, conditions and restrictions-as was the case here. Because the county satisfied all four prongs of the injunction require- ments, the lower court had not erred. The decision granting the injunc- tion was affirmed. See also: Metropolitan Dade County v. O'Brien, 660 So. 2d 364 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1995). Junkyard-After attempting to resolve waste management violations, county seeks relief in court Landowner claims county's clean-up effort amounts to illegal taking Citation: County of Freeborn v. Brue, 2007 WL 3257187 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) MINNESOTA (11/06/07)-In 2001, residents of Freeborn County complained about the condition of two parcels of property owned by Brue. Specifically, they object to "unlicensed, inoperable vehicles, in- cluding trailers, piles of junk, scrap metal, iron, aluminum, toppers, farm machinery, military vehicles, automotive parts, and tires" that were being stored on the property. Over the next five years, the county tried unsuccessfully to have the property cleaned up voluntarily. The county called and sent letters to Brue regarding the property, conducted on-site visits, and provided him with a list of businesses that help with cleanup. When Brue dld not re- spond to any of the offers for help, the county eventually sued Brue in court over violations of its waste management ordinance. The court found in the county's favor without a trial, and it ordered Brue to allow the county to enter his property within 30 days to remove the items prohibited by the ordinance, convert the items to cash, and use 5 67