Buck Hill gets pass to store cars in summer

The Burnsville City Council has shown that it's willing to be flexible to help one of the city's showcase businesses.

By a 3-2 vote, the council agreed to a change that will allow Buck Hill to use its parking lot for automobile storage. In accordance with a city ordinance, city employees had recommended that Buck Hill be required to install pervious pavers in its parking lot to reduce storm water runoff.

"[The owners of Buck Hill] have been a tremendous asset to the community," said Peter Coyle, attorney for Buck Hill Inc. "Four or five years ago they were on the verge of selling it because they couldn't afford to keep it operating. We made a pact with the city to keep it open and the city has given us cooperation in trying to find additional revenue. So this is what you do."

Saying his position was based on common sense, council member Dan Kealey offered strong support for the amendment, which was seconded by Dan Gustafson. Charlie Crichton and Mary Sherry both voted not to support the amendment before Mayor Elizabeth Kautz broke the tie with a yes vote.

"This is a difficult time for businesses, and they're looking for ways to increase revenues," Kautz said. "[Buck Hill] is in compliance with existing ordinances for its core business. They should not be required to do anything else."

City staff members pointed out the ordinance was in place last summer before the final section of the Buck Hill lot was paved. Coyle countered that the decision to use the lot to store cars was made after the paving was completed.

Cars were stored in the parking lot this summer until Buck Hill was informed by city officials it was violating city code. The cars were then removed. Kealey said "the penalty should fit the crime" and that a fine could be issued.

"They better not," Coyle said. "Once they told us to stop it we stopped it."

Sherry said passing the amendment sent the message that the City Council favored one business in the community over another. She pointed out that another business in the city asked for a similar amendment and was turned down.

The issue was put before the City Council last month for a vote but Coyle asked that a decision be delayed. At that time Crichton and Sherry made it clear they opposed the amendment. Kealey was absent from that council meeting.

The council indicated it will consider revisiting the ordinance in the near future to see if it should be overturned.