1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

confonnities. See Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. Ie (2008) (allowing non-confonnities to be continued through "through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion") (emphasis added). In adopting these changes, the Legislature made a conscious decision to bolster the property rights of non-conformity owners. Indeed, shortly before the Legislature passed the 2004 amendments, an opponent of the bill noted that "[a]llowing the replacement, restoration, or improvements of nonconforming uses will prevent [sic] nonconfonning uses to become perpetual." Transcript of House Floor Session at 16 (May 12,2004) ("May 12 Tr.") (remarks of Rep. Paymar), attached as Soules Aff., Ex. C. Representative Paymar contrasted these amendments with the state's earlier policy, which was "to eventually eliminate non-conforming uses by obsolescence, destruction, and deterioration." He wamed that "[t]he proposed. . . amendment totally undermines this well- settled legal principle and renders it virtually useless as a land-use regulatory concept for municipalities to pursue." ld. The Legislature nevertheless passed the 2004 amendments by an overwhelming margin. See Soules Aff., Ex. D. Clear Channel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that its replacement of the 1-694 sign face with a new LED panel constitutes a permissible "improvement" within the meaning of Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. Ie. Although "improvement" is not defined in the statute, the plain meaning of this tenn can be ascel1ained by reference to case law and dictionaries. See Annandale Advocate V. City of Annandale, 435 N.W.2d 24, 28 (Minn. 1989) (relying on definitions from case law and a legal dictionary to detennine the plain meaning of a statutory term). More than thirty years ago, the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted a "common-sense interpretation" of "improvement." See Pacific lndem. Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, 260 N.W.2d . .. 11