Agenda - Council - 11/24/2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

FACTS The subject property is located in a rural district zoned forsingle - family dwellings. Respondent Richard Haefele purchased the property in1985 as a nonconforming duplex. Due to the nonconforming -use status, theproperty may be used as a group home serving seven to sixteen persons pursuantto state law. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 8 (1998). In 1985, Haefeleleased the property to an entity called "Welcome Home" that used the propertyas a group home for approximately ten years. After Welcome Home left, Haefeleattempted to rent or sell the property for use as a group home serving seven tosixteen persons. In 1997, Haefele began negotiating with respondent Solid Foundations, Inc., tobecome tenants operating a group home. Respondent Jennifer Coughlin, directorof respondent Solid Foundations, Inc., contacted the city regarding the use ofthe property as a group home and was told there was no zoning problem with herproposed use. Coughlin and Haefele contracted for approximately $15,000 inrepairs to the property and Coughlin spent another $42,000 in preparing to usethe property as a group home. In December 1997, after neighborhood opposition to the project surfaced, citystaff indicated that they now believed that Haefele had abandoned theproperty's nonconforming -use status, such that the property was no longereligible for a seven- to sixteen- person group home. The city attorney prepareda memorandum dated February 13, 1998, recommending a finding of abandonment.By a letter to respondents dated February 18, 1998, the city enclosed a copy ofthat memorandum and described the appeals process to challenge its conclusion.An April 2, 1998, memorandum from city staff to the Board of Adjustments andAppeals outlines the case for abandonment. After Haefele and Coughlin appearedbefore the board on April 9, 1998, the board ruled that the property'snonconforming -use had been abandoned. In June 1998, the city council affirmedthe board's determination that the nonconforming -use status had beenabandoned. Respondents filed a complaint challenging the finding of abandonment of theproperty's nonconforming -use status. Respondents brought a motion for atemporary injunction, seeking to enjoin the city from interfering with use ofthe property as a group home serving seven to sixteen persons. Upondetermining that all five Dahlberg factors favored respondents,the district court issued the temporary injunction. This appeal followed. DECISION Absent a clear abuse of discretion, this court will not rever thedistrict court's decision to grant a temporary injunction. Carl Bolander& Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis , 502 N.W.2d 203, 209 (Minn.1993). Furthermore, this court views the facts alleged in the . pleadings andaffidavits in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. PacificEquip. & Irrigation v. Toro Co. , 519 N.W.2d 911, 914 (Minn. App.1994), review denied (Minn. Sept. 16, 1994). "A district court'sfindings regarding entitlement to injunctive relief will not be set asideunless clearly erroneous." Upper Midwest Sales Co. v. Ecolab,Inc. , 577 N.W.2d 236, 240 (Minn. App. 1998) (quotation omitted). Inits determination to grant or deny a temporary injunction, a court mustconsider five Dahlberg factors. Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v.Ford Motor Co . , 272 Minn. 264, 2 74 - 75, 1 37 N.W.2d 314, 321 - 22(1965).