Laserfiche WebLink
<br />given 30 days in which to correct the violation. He added the proposed amendment is intended <br />to give the City another avenue to correct the violation short of revocation of the permit. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller stated the typical policy in dealing with enforcement <br />issues is that they come in on a complaint basis; the City does not go out and double check <br />businesses to make sure they are meeting the City's guidelines. She explained that on complaint- <br />based issues, the City can write them up and issue an administrative citation as defined in the <br />Code, but revocation is currently the only avenue available to the City for dealing with a <br />conditional use violation. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated he felt it was difficult to believe the City would want to put itself in the <br />position of suspending business operations on an interim basis in order to enforce the Code, <br />when that business needs the permit to operate and the City is effectively shutting them down. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated if the City Council determines that suspension is too harsh, the <br />City can continue through the abatement procedure to make sure the property owner comes into <br />compliance. He stated the permit can be suspended for up to 30 days, similar to an alcohol or <br />tobacco violation; the property owner would have to go through the public hearing process to get <br />their permit reinstated. <br /> <br />Commissioner Rogers asked if the City has encountered any violations that would fall under the <br /> <br />. . . <br />suspenSIOn prOVISIOn. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill replied the only situation he was aware of involved the case discussed <br />earlier, which was an outdoor recreation conditional use permit. He stated he did not see this as a <br />widespread problem in the City and staff is willing to work with property owners to rectify <br />violations without revoking or suspending their permit. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hunt asked if there is any flexibility in extenuating circumstances where the <br />property owner cannot correct the violation within 30 days. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill replied that staff wants to be flexible in working with property owners <br />to bring them into compliance. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated he thought there were ameliorating circumstances where suspension of a <br />permit is appropriate, but felt that if the violation is curable, the City should have the ability <br />within the conditional use permit itself to take enforcement action that would include the ability <br />to require the property owner to cease the violating activities or force the property owner into <br />some other compliant type measures under the threat of a revocation proceeding. He stated this <br />is not a quick remedy to get there and if the City were to start a revocation proceeding <br />immediately, the 30 day cure is inherently built into the process. He stated he was not sure he <br />would want someone to not operate their business because suspension is the least intrusive <br />means available to the City to enforce the terms of the permit. He suggested removing the <br />proposed subd. 9 and giving the City greater latitude in expanding the cure period to permit the <br />City to work with the property owner to rectify the violation. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/February 5, 2009 <br />Page 4 of 10 <br />