1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert H. Lynn April 15, 2008 Page 6 (1) the nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or (2) any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, a municipality may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. Ie (a) (emphasis added). Minn. Stat. 9 462.357, subd. Ie (b) specifically requires that "falny subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conformmg use or occupancy." Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. Ie (b) (emphasis added). This legislative prohibition on the expansion of nonconforming structures or uses merely restates and preserves the longstanding judicial interpretation of the nonconforming use doctrine. As the Minnesota Supreme Court explained: It is not required, however, that preexisting nonconforming uses be allowed to expand or enlarge. Thc public policy behind that doctrine is to increase the likelihood that such uses will in time be eliminated due to obsolescence, exhaustion, or destruction. This in turn will lead to a uniform use of the land consistent with the overall comprehensive zoning plan. County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99, 203 N.W.2d 323,325 (1972). Plaintiff admits that the depth of the digital sign unit "is approximately eight inches greater than the sign face it replaced." An increase in one or more dimensions of a structure or a use constitutes an expansion or enlargement of that structure or use. See County of Lake V. Cour/ney, 451 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990) (holding that roof line that was six feet higher than prior roof violated county's ordinance prohibiting the enlargement, increase, or extension of a nonconformity); County of Freeborn, 295 Minn. at 100,203 N.W.2d at 326 ("An addition to an existing building is clearly an extension or expansion of a prior nonconforming use."); Adams Ou/door Adver/ising, LP. V. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Virginia Beach, 645 S.E.2d 271, 275 (Va. 2007) (holding that installation of electronic message board enlarged nonconforming billboard in violation of city ordinance); Ciiy of Foley Board of Adjustmen/s and Appeals V. H & S Southern Graphics Sys/ems, Inc., 878 S.E.2d 294, 299 (Ala. 2003) (holding that joining two signs increased the total square footage of the sign face and changed the shape of the sign in violation of municipal zoning ordinance). Plaintiff insists that there was no expansion, contending that the LED sign face is designed to display images that are smaller than the vinyl sign face it replaced and that the overall sign footprint is the same even though the depth of the sign increased. The Virginia Supreme Court recently addressed this very argument and rejected it. In Adams Outdoor