1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'~; Robert H. Lynn April 15,200& Page 16 face mean that the City was impliedly granting permission to Plaintiff to install the LED sign face. To the contrary, as soon as the LED sign became operational and the City realized what Plaintiff had done, it directed Plaintiff to cease and desist operation of the unJawful sign. Not only do the facts belie Plaintiffs estoppel and waiver claims, but the Minnesota courts have repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that "a governmental entity' cannot be estopped from correctly enforcing the ordinance even if the property owner relied to his detriment on prior city action.'" SLS Partnership v. City of Apple Valley, 511 N.W.2d 738, 743 (Minn. 1994) (quoting Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of RoseviIle, 295 N.W.2d 604, 607 (Minn. 1980)). In SLS Partnership, the Minnesota Supreme Court refused to estop a city from enforcing a setback requirement, even where it tried to do so for the first time after 24 years of issuing annual permits despite ongoing setback violations. See id. at 740. See a/so John Wright & Assocs. v. City of Red Wing, 254 Minn. 1, &,93 N.W.2d 660, 664-65 (1958) (illegal use of a building since its inception does not become legal simply by the passage of time); Prior Lalre Aggregates v. City of Savage, 349 N.W.2d 575, 5&0 (Minn. Ct. App. J9&4) (holding that a municipality could not be estopped from enforcing its zoning ordinances); 8A Eugene McQuillan, THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS;) 25.349 (3d ed. 1994) (it is no defense to an injunctive suit that municipal authorities have done nothing about the alleged violation). The Minnesota Supreme Court has done nothing to erode the continued validity of its articulation of the governing standard in SLS Partnership. Accordingly, Plaintiff has no legal basis for claiming that the City's actions with respect to the electrical pennit or inactions with respect to prior sign alterations by Clear Channel somehow permit Plaintiff to illegally operate the LED sign. 4. The City Did Not Fail to Review the Sign Permit Within the Allotted Time Although Plaintiff fails to raise this claim in its Complaint, and never raised it on appeal to the Council, it is anticipated that Plaintiff will contend that its sign permit application must be "deemed approved" because the City allegedly failed to approve or review the sign permit application within 30 days from receipt of the application. Section 1220.03 of the City's Sign Code provides that The City Administrator or their designee shall approve or deny the sign permit application in an expedited manner, no more than thirty (30) days from the receipt of the completed application, including applicable fees. All permits not reviewed within thirty (30) days shall be deemed approved. Applicants shall be notified in writing if the application is denied, including the reasons for denial. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Plaintiff "submitted a sign pennit application to the City on May 21,2007" and denied the application on June 18,2007. The copy of the sign permit application in the possession of the City is stamped with the date of May 21, 2007, indicating that the City received the application on May 21, 2007. The copy ofthe sign permit application in the possession of the City attorney is stamped with the date of May 21, 2007. However, the copy of the sign permit application in the possession of Clear Channel and produced for the first