My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1A, Clear Channel Litigation
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
04-21-08-WS
>
1A, Clear Channel Litigation
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/18/2008 4:09:22 PM
Creation date
4/18/2008 4:08:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
Clearn Channel Litigation
General - Type
Agenda
Date
4/21/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />confonnities. See Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. Ie (2008) (allowing non-confonnities to be <br /> <br />continued through "through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, <br /> <br />but not including expansion") (emphasis added). In adopting these changes, the Legislature <br /> <br />made a conscious decision to bolster the property rights of non-conformity owners. Indeed, <br /> <br />shortly before the Legislature passed the 2004 amendments, an opponent of the bill noted <br /> <br />that "[a]llowing the replacement, restoration, or improvements of nonconforming uses will <br /> <br />prevent [sic] nonconfonning uses to become perpetual." Transcript of House Floor Session <br /> <br />at 16 (May 12,2004) ("May 12 Tr.") (remarks of Rep. Paymar), attached as Soules Aff., Ex. <br /> <br />C. Representative Paymar contrasted these amendments with the state's earlier policy, which <br /> <br />was "to eventually eliminate non-conforming uses by obsolescence, destruction, and <br /> <br />deterioration." He wamed that "[t]he proposed. . . amendment totally undermines this well- <br /> <br />settled legal principle and renders it virtually useless as a land-use regulatory concept for <br /> <br />municipalities to pursue." ld. The Legislature nevertheless passed the 2004 amendments by <br /> <br />an overwhelming margin. See Soules Aff., Ex. D. <br /> <br />Clear Channel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that its replacement of the 1-694 <br /> <br />sign face with a new LED panel constitutes a permissible "improvement" within the meaning <br /> <br />of Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. Ie. Although "improvement" is not defined in the statute, the <br /> <br />plain meaning of this tenn can be ascel1ained by reference to case law and dictionaries. See <br /> <br />Annandale Advocate V. City of Annandale, 435 N.W.2d 24, 28 (Minn. 1989) (relying on <br /> <br />definitions from case law and a legal dictionary to detennine the plain meaning of a statutory <br /> <br />term). <br /> <br />More than thirty years ago, the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted a "common-sense <br /> <br />interpretation" of "improvement." See Pacific lndem. Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, 260 N.W.2d <br /> <br />. <br />.. <br /> <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.