Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/1999

Home

Page 8 -- March 25, 1999 Z.B. Signs -- Owners claim city authorized them to build nonconforming billboard Citation: City of Oronoco v. Marmas Properties, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. C9-98-1358 (1999) Universal Outdoor Inc. and Marmas Properties (owners) built a billboard in the city of Oronoco, Minn. The billboard advertised an off-premise business. The city sued the owners. It sought a court order prohibiting them from maintaining a billboard in violation of the city zoning ordinance, which pro- hibited signs that contained information or advertising for any product not sold on the premises. The owners claimed they got the city planning board's approval before building the sign. The planning board apparently approved the owners' request to build a sign that was larger than allowed by the zoning ordinance, but the owners' application had portrayed a blank sign. According to the owners, the court should bar the city from enforcing its zoning ordinance. In order to bar the city from enforcing its ordinance, the owners had to prove: (1) the city..intentionally misrepresented a material fact, (2) the city intended for the owners to rely on its misrepresentation, and (3) the owners relied on the city's misrepresentations without knowing the correct facts. The owners apparently claimed the fact they built the sign showed they had the city's approval for a nonconforming sign. The court issued an order prohibiting the owners from violating the zoning ordinance, and the owners appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The owners had to bring their billboard into compliance with the city zon- ing ordinance. The owners never challenged the validity of the zoning ordi- nance, so the city could enforce the ordinance. There was no question the owners' billboard violated the zoning ordinance. The ordinance prohibited all signs that had information or advertising for any product not sold on the premises, and the owners admitted their sign advertised an off-premise business. The court wouldn't bar the city from enforcing its zoning ordinance be- cause the owners didn't prove the city intentionally misrepresented anything. To prevent the city from enforcing its ordinance, the owners had to show the city engaged in affirmative misconduct; rather than a mistake. At best, the. owners showed nothing more 'than confusion as to approval for the sign. The owners most persuasive evidence showed only that the city approved a blank sign that was to be larger than allowed by the zoning ordinance, which didn't prove the city authorized the owners to advertise an off-premise business in violation of the ordinance. The owners didn't present any evidence that a city official approved the nonconforming sign. see also: SLS Partnership, Apple Valley v. City of Apple Valley, 511 N.W. 2d 738 (1994).