2004_0223_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Neal Beets February 6,2004 '' Page 2 governmental as opposed to propriety purposes. The Minnesota Supreme Court, however, rejected this test in Town of Oronoco v. Rochester, 197 N.W.2d 426 (1972). In the Oronoco case, the City of Rochester argued it was exempt from county zoning regulations. Instead of adopting the predominant view discussed above, the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted a balance of interests test to use on a case-by-case basis. Basically, the zoning authority must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the interests in enforcing the strict requirements of the zoning ordinance outweigh the interests served hy the proposed use of public property. While there is not a great deal of precedent since 1972, the federal court, applying Minnesota law, has recognized the continuing viability of the "Oronoco Doctrine." Specifically, in Anderson v. Douglas County, 4 F.3d 577 (8`h Cir. 1993), the 8`h Circuit Court of Appeals noted the ongoing viability of existing law in this area. In the context of your question, we believe the Oronoco case applies to the placement of signs on City property. For example, just as the doctrine applies to the question of City regulation of, say, school district land, it also applies to the application of City regulations to City-owned land. _ __ �� _ �- __� �� � � - �� Given the above, it is our opinion that the City, in determining whether to allow "illegal" signs on City property, should consider whether the interests in placing the � signs outweigh the interests in strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. In doing so, the City should consider the purpose served by the sign, the degree or nature of � nonconformity, whether the placement of the sign would adversely affect the public � � health, safety, and welfare of the community, and other criteria determined relevant by � the City. If the City determines the interests in the sign outweigh the. interests in strict enforcement of the ordinance, it is our opinion placement of the sign on City property � ��would be consistent with law. � _ � — � _� _ � � — r-� _�� ___r ��- ��-�� ' With respect to your second question, Minn. Stat. � 462357 and Chapter 1013 of City Code authorize the City to grant variances from the terms of the City Zoning Ordinance. Since Chapter 1009 is part of the City Zoning Ordinance, the City would have the authority, through the variance process, to grant sign variances. Of course, the standard of "undue hardship" would apply to any variance decision.