1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert H. Lynn April 15, 2008 Page 10 alterations. Plaintiff installed the LED sign face illegally and continues to unlawfully operate its LED sign. The City is entitled to removal of the LED sign. D. Plaintiff's Legal Claims Are Without Merit Because Plaintiff Has No Right to Expand its Nonconforming Billboard and the City's Regulations Are Not Preempted by State Law 1. Plaintiff's Installation of the LED Sign Face Does Not Constitute An Improvement Within the Meaning of Minnesota Statute ~ 462.357, subd. Ie Plaintiff argues that it has the right to ignore the City's laws because the replacement of a static sign face with an LED sign face allegedly constitutes an "improvement" within the meaning of Minn. Stat. ~ 462.357, subd. Ie. However, State law prohibits a unilateral expansion of a nonconforming use even if that expansion is an improvement. In any event, Plaintiff's replacement of the static sign face with a digital display does not constitute an improvement because the conversion to a digital display (1) caused the sign to violate the City's external lighting regulations for signs located in Sign District 7 and (2) caused the sign to be more distracting, causing harm to the public health, safety and welfare. For all these reasons, Plaintiff did not improve the sign within the meaning of Minn. Stat. ~ 462.357, subd. Ie. a. Expansions of Nonconforming Uses are Unlawful, Regardless of Whether they Constitute "Improvements" As explained above, the change in the depth of the sign face as a result of the installation of the LED device constitutes an "expansion" of the use. An improvement that is also an expansion is prohibited by the plain language of the statute. In quoting the relevant statutory provision, Plaintiff's Complaint, qnite literally, reads the "but not expansion" clause right out of the statute, by removing that clause and the comma that precedes it after the word "improvement" and replacing it with a period. Compare subd. Ie with Complaint at ~19. Plaintiff's selective interpretation of the nonconforming use statute is at odds with the plain meaning of the statute and would eviscerate the statute's prohibition on expansion. The statute provides that a nonconformity may be "continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but uot iucluding expausion." Minn. Stat. ~ 462.357, subd. Ie (emphasis added). If, as Plaintiff urges, an improvement were permitted, regardless of whether or not such an improvement was also an expansion, that would not only be contrary to the very words of the statute, which permit "improvement, but not [] expansion," it would also effectively nullifY the statute's prohibition on expansion-an interpretation that is not permissible uuder the rules of statutory interpretation. See American Tower, L.P. V. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309, 313 (Minn. 2001). Plaintiff's interpretation