1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert H. Lynn April 15, 2008 Page 5 . The replacement of the vinyl sign face with the LED face constitutes an unlawful enlargement and expansion of the use and structure under the City's Sign Code because the installation of the LED face increased the depth, weight, and amperage of the sign, required additional external supports, and expanded the lighting from four external lights to thousands ofLEDs; and . The illumination of the LED sign fmled to satisfy the requirements in Sign District 7 for external lighting established by the City's Sign Code because the LEDs are an integral part of the sign itself. Because Plaintiffs continued operation of the altered sign in the absence of a sign permit is unlawful and violates the City's Sign Code, the City directed Clear Channel to remove the LED sign face and restore the static sign face. This lawsuit followed. Analvsis of the City's Counterclaims and Plaintiffs Le~al Claims The following is a summary of the City's arguments in support of its counterclaim for enforcement of its Sign Code and removal of the digital sign, and against Plaintiff's claims. In short, the City is entitled to prevail for three reasons. First, Clear Channel's installation of a digital sign constitutes an unlawful expansion and enlargement of a nonconforming structure and use. Second, Clear Channel's digital sign violates the illumination standards and restrictions in the distl"ict in which the sign is located. Third, Clear Channel altered its static sign and replaced it with a digital sign without first obtaining a sign permit from the City and continues to operate this sign without the required permit. The City also is entitled to prevail on Clear Channel's claims, not only because the digital sign constitutes an unlawful expansion and enlargement of a nonconforming use and violates the City's illumination standards, but also because state law does not preempt local regulations of signs. A. Clear Channel's Digital Sign Constitutes an Unlawfnl Expansion and Enlargement of a Nonconforming Structure and Use Plaintiff s installation of a digital sign constitutes an unlawful expansion and enlargement of a nonconforming structure and use. The City prohibits the enlargement or expansion of nonconforming signs. City Sign Code, Section 1280.01. The state also prohibits the unauthorized expansion of nonconforming uses and requires any subsequent uses to be conforming. Minn. Stat. !i 462.357, subd. Ie (a) and (b). The nonconforming use statute provides: Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: