1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I. THE SIGN PERMIT SHOULD BE DEEMED APPROVED BY OPERATION OF LAW. I I , , I i As a threshold matter, Clear Channel is entitled to summary judgment because its sign permit application was approved by operation of law. The Arden Hills Sign Code requires permit applications to be reviewed "in an expedited manner." Sign Code ~ 1220.03 (June 26, 2006) ("Sign Code"), attached as Soules Aff., Ex. B. To ensure the timely processing of , ~ j permit applications, the Sign Code mandates that "[ aJII permits not reviewed within thirty (30) days shall be deemed approved," and requires permit denials be provided through written notice "that is postmarked within thirty (30) days of the accepted application." Id. ~ 1220.03. In this case, Clear Channel submitted its sign permit application to the City on May 18,2007. See McCarver Aff., Ex. E (date stamped application). The City thus had thirty days from May 18 to issue a Wlitten notice of denial. The City Planner's denial letter, however, was not postmarked until June 19, 2007 - thirty-two days after the application was received. Id., Ex. F. Because the City Planner's notice of denial was not postmarked within thirty days, Clear Channel's sign permit application should be deemed approved by operation oflaw. See Moreno v. City of Minneapolis, 676 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. App. 2004) (holding that a municipality's failure to act within an analogous 60-day limit imposed by Minn. Stal. ~ 15.99 results in automatic approval ofthe subject land use application).2 2 By counterclaim, the City now argues, for the first time, that it should prevail because Clear Channel failed to obtain a sign permit. See Counterclaim 'lI'124-37. This argument is witham merit, and does not weigh against summary judgment in Clear Channel's favor. The reasoning underlying this argument is circular: Clear Channel's failure to obtain a sign penni! is the result of the City's own actions. (continued on next page) 9