Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2010 1 Volume 41 No. 18 Ordinance went into effect, the city demanded that Clear Channel re- move its existing billboard extensions by August 1, 2006. The city also ordered Clear Channel to refrain from using new billboard extensions. Clear Channel sued the city, challenging the validity of the ordi- nance. Among other things, Clear Channel argued that the adoption of the Ordinance was an "unreasonable use" of the city's police power. Clear Channel said this was because the city offered no rational basis for its decision to adopt the Ordinance. The minutes of the City Council meeting at which the Ordinance was adopted "reveal[ed]" only a brief discussion of the Ordinance. Those dis- cussions did not address the "merits or drawbacks" of the Ordinance. Clear Channel argued that, under a rule established by the Minne- sota Supreme Court, the city had to offer a rational basis for the adop- tion of the Ordinance. The city contended that under a Minnesota Court of Appeals rule, it was "not required to articulate reasons for enacting ... [the] [0] rdinance." Both Clear Channel and the city filed motions for summary judgment. They asked the district court to find that there were no material issues of fact in dispute and to issue judgment in their favor on the law alone. The district court issued summary judgment in favor of Clear Chan- nel. It agreed with Clear Channel's argument. It held that the Ordi- nance was invalid because the city had failed to articulate the reasons for its adoption. The city appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, agreed with Clear Channel and the district court. It found that the Minnesota Su- preme Court rule cited by Clear Channel applied to municipal zoning actions taken based on the police authority granted to municipalities under Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. 1). That statute authorized municipalities "to regulate the location, height, and width of buildings and other structures, `[f]or the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare."' Thus, when taking such actions, municipalities had to articulate a "rational basis" for the action. While the municipality "need not necessarily prepare formal findings of fact, ... it must, at a minimum, have the reasons for its deci- sion recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion," said the court. The court found that, here, the city's authority to regulate billboard extensions "derived" from the police power granted to them under Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. 1. Accordingly, the court found that the city was required to "record or reduce to writing" the rational basis for m 2010 Thomson Reuters 3 91