Laserfiche WebLink
Sent by: DRB 612 291 9313; 09/04/97 11:53AM;Jetff=~ #141;Page 4/4 <br /> <br />Mayor and City Council <br />Page 2 <br />September 4, 1997 <br /> <br />companies do not comply with the order, the City should bring a.n action in district court to obtain <br />an order alloWing the City to remove the illegal billboards and assess the costs of removal to the <br />companies. <br /> <br />Minnesota case law exists on this issue and supports the ability of municipalities to amortize <br />nonconforming signs over a three year period and require removal after the three period has expired. <br />it& l',heg¢le Outdoor Adv. Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 162 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1968). Case law <br />also supports removal of nonconforming uses after they have incurred extensive damage. See Henog <br />v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins Co, 415 N.W. 2d 370 (MinnApp. 1987). However, there is always the risk <br />that a court could rule against the City. <br /> <br />Since it is possible, if not likely, that one or more of the billboard companies will contest the City's <br />efforts, a decision to pursue legal action for removal of the illegal billboards should be made with the <br />knowledge that it could result in lengthy, and potentially costly, litigation. <br /> <br /> <br />