Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/1999

Home

f z.ao April 10, 1999 Page 7 In 1994, the city amended its zoning ordinance to make junkyards a non- conforming use. A year later, Dailey expanded his operations, purchasing ad- jacent property. Before buying the property, Dailey contacted the city adminis- trator, who told him the auction business was a conforming use. In 1997, the planning commission informed Dailey his property had be- come unsightly and violated his conditional use permit. The city planner told Dailey the city had approved a comprehensive plan to improve the area's im- age and to reorient the industrial park to a business park. A few month's later, the city notified Daily his business violated the condi- tions of his conditional use permit and said he had 30 days to create a plan to bring the property into compliance. Dailey hired someone to repair the fence and trim the trees. The planning commission held a meeting to discuss revoking Dailey's per- mit. Dailey told the commission he had brought the property into compliance with his permit. He asked the city to inspect the property. The commission told Dailey an inspection wasn't needed. The planning commission held another meeting, at which it concluded Dailey's use of the property met the definition of a junkyard and was therefore a nonconforming use. The commission found Dailey's 1995 expansion involved an expansion of a nonconforming use. The city ordered Dailey to submit a timeline for shutting down his business. Dailey sued the city. He sought a court order prohibiting the city from revoking his permit or enforcing the junkyard ordinance to terminate his business. The court temporarily ordered the city to allow Dailey to stay in business pending the outcome of the trial. The city appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Dailey could operate his business pending the outcome of his trial. The city and Dailey could maintain their relationship while awaiting a trial. Up until 1997, when the city created a comprehensive plan, Dailey's permit violations were, at the very least, ignored by the city. A month before the city ordered Dailey to shut down, the parties were still attempting to reach a mutu- ally beneficial solution. Without the temporary order, Dailey would be unable to retrieve, store, and auction vehicles -- his sole source of income. Without this income, Dailey wouldn't be able to maintain the property, and his employees would be out of work. If Dailey couldn't operate his business while the trial was pending, his customers would find someone else to auction their vehicles. There was no way to guarantee his clients would return even if he won the lawsuit. Finally, it was possible Dailey's lawsuit would be successful. The city's junkyard ordinance could be interpreted to exclude Dailey's business. A "junkyard" was usually a place where people brought their useless cars to rust out or to be sold for parts. Dailey ran an auto auction business -- and the city only recently considered Dailey's business a junkyard. see also: Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W. 2d 409 (1981).