1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert H. Lynn April 15, 20118 Page 11 permitting an improvement even if it is an expansion would effectively insulate from state and local regulation the commencement of a new illegal use so long as that illegal use could be characterized as an "improvement." Such an approach would also be at odds with the policy objective underlying state and local nonconforming use laws, which is to accomplish the termination of nonconforming uses over time. b. The Installation of the LED Sign Face Is Not an Improvement Plaintiff's replacement of the static sign face with a digital display does not constitute an improvement because, as explained above, the conversion to a digital display caused the sign to violate the City's external lighting regulations for signs located in Sign District 7. It must be emphasized that Subd. Ie (a) merely creates a right to continue a use, without also creating a right to change that use in a manner that would create a new violation of local laws. Plaintiff's ability to continue its prior use is not in question-it can continue to operate a static sign. What is at stake is its ability to effectively replace a picture with a computer without first obtaining a sign permit and without regard to whether such a step complies with the City's illumination standards and the City's prohibition on expansion of nonconforming uses. Despite the adoption of subd. I e in 200 I, Minnesota nonconforming use law has continued to protect only lawfUl prior nonconforming uses. See, e.g., County of Morrison V. Wheeler, 722 N.W.2d 329, 333 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 2006). "The general rule that only existing lawful uses are entitled to due process protection as nonconforming uses established is directed primarily to the protection of uses established in compliance with then existing zoning classifications." Id (quoting Hooperv. City of St. Paul, 353 N.W.2d 138, 140 (Minn. 1984)) (emphasis added). The operation of a non-externally illuminated sign was not legal at the time the LED device was installed. Because the display devices are not a "use established in compliance with then- existing zoning classifications," they fall outside of the scope of the doctrine's protection, and thus could never constitute a prior lawful nonconforming use. The replacement of the static sign face with a digital display is not an improvement for the additional reason that the conversion also caused the sign to be more distracting, causing harm to the public health, safety and welfare. The City has the statutory authority and constitutional power to regulate billboards, and the conversion of static billboard into digital billboards, to promote the public health, welfare and safety of its citizens. It may do so regardless of whether the sign is a prior lawful nonconforming uses or structure, pursuant to the second sentence of Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. Ie (b), which states that: A municipality may, by ordinance, permit an expansion Or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. A conversion of a static sign face to a digital display is a step in the wrong direction, from a safety point of view. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently noted: