1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and either party is entitled to judgment as a matter ofIaw. See Lubbers v. Anderson, 539 N.W.2d 398, 401 (Minn. 1995); Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. A municipality's land use decision, like the City's denial of Clear Channel's sign pennit application and its directive that the LED sign face be removed, is reviewed to detennine "whether it was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious." Trisko v. City of Waite Park, 566 N.W.2d 349,352 (Minn. App. 1997) (citing Swanson v. City o/Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307,313 (Minn. 1988)). Where, as here, the city council has stated its reasons for denying the permit, courts limit their "review to the legal sufficiency and the factual bases for those reasons." Trisko, 566 N.W.2d at 352. A municipality's decision is unreasonable, and should be struck down, "if its reasons are legally insufficient or if the decision is without factual basis." County of Morrison v. Wheeler, 722 N.W.2d 329,334 (Minn. App. 2006) (citation omitted). ARGUMENT Clear Channel is entitled to summary judgment. Clear Channel's sign pennit application should be deemed approved by operation of law because the City failed to provide a written notice of denial postmarked within thirty days. Whether or not a permit was required, Clear Channel was entitled to replace the 1-694 sign face pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. Ie, which allows landowners to make improvements to non- confonnities. The City cannot impose its lighting restrictions on the 1-694 sign because those restrictions have not been certified by the State, do not apply to billboards, and are arbitrary and therefore unenforceable. 8