In January, the city filed a lawsuit against Son Silver West in the Coconino County Superior Court seeking abatement of violations that remain on the property.

According to Sedona City Attorney Robert Pickels, this is otherwise known as injunctive relief. The business, owned by the Robson family, filed their answer to the city’s complaint within the required time limit of 20 days. The court has now set a date of Monday, May 6, for a case management conference, when all of the litigation dates will be mapped out. 

Pickels said that, eventually, absent voluntary compliance, there will be a trial to determine whether or not the city should be entitled to enter the Son Silver West property and cause the reduction in the size of the business to occur. 

“Although we don’t know specifically how that would work today, it could include anything from on-site monitoring of the SSW efforts to reduce their operation to physically taking control of the premises until full compliance is achieved,” Pickels said. 

“While we would prefer to avoid any extreme remedies that could cause the business to close, temporarily or otherwise, their continued lack of even the slightest attempts at compliance leaves city officials with little other option than to aggressively pursue all available remedies.” 

Until May 6, the city is in a bit of a holding pattern. Once a trial date is set, Pickels said discovery occurs, and the courts usually allow several months for that. He estimates the discovery cut-off to be sometime in the fall. Also, the court will require the parties to participate in some kind of settlement process such as mediation, arbitration or, more likely, judicial

settlement conference conducted by the judge. When discovery concludes, the court will then set a trial date. 

Pickels said his guess is that a trial would take place late this year or early 2020. If a trial does occur and the judgement is ruled in favor of the Robsons, Pickels said the city still has options for compliance. 

“In light of the fact that the courts have already determined that the city was acting within the scope of its authority in issuing the violations, we proceeded directly to what we thought was the most appropriate remedy of abatement through injunction,” he said. 

“If that fails, then we would go back to the more traditional methods of prosecuting the violations through the municipal court.” 

An email to Robson family attorney Francis Slavin seeking comment was not returned. The ongoing court battle between the Robsons and the city is now into its third year. In June 2016, the Sedona Board of Adjustments said the issuance of two notices of violations by

then-Community Development Director Audree Juhlin in late 2015 to the Robson family were justified. 

The board’s decision was then appealed to the Coconino County Superior Court. Coconino County Superior Court Judge Dan Slayton’s ruling in 2017 included the following: 

•  Plaintiffs shall immediately cease and desist all use of the property, i.e., the adjacent vacant lot on State Route 179, for parking. 
•  Plaintiffs shall immediately cease and desist all use of that same property for commercial purposes including shipping/receiving activities and storage and merchandise. 
•  Plaintiffs shall remove all outdoor retail display area in excess of the approved 5,000 square feet within 30 days. The area measured 16,000 square feet as of a year ago. 
•  Plaintiffs shall remove all enclosed retail area in excess of the approved 2,250 square feet within 30 days. The space measured 5,600 square feet as of a year ago. 
•  Buildings A and B, as included on the site plan for the recent applications, need to be returned to storage sheds and not retail display or other commercial purposes. 
•  Plaintiffs shall restore 1,950 square feet of the primary dwelling unit back to single-family residential home within 30 days. Following Slayton’s ruling, Slavin appealed that decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals. After a year-long process, the court found in favor of the city last year.