Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />AUG-~9-1997 13:17 CITY OF RAMSEY <br /> <br /> existed for the last severa~ yea~s. <br /> between $60,000 and $65,000. <br /> is $6,676.39. <br /> <br />612 42? 5543 P.07/09 <br /> <br /> The market value estimate of the sign is <br />The estimate of the cost to rebuild the sign <br /> <br /> Plaintiff began an action against Defendant requesting a declaratory <br />judgment that it is entitled to re-erect the sign and an injunction to prevent the <br />City from taking any action to prevent it from repairing and re-erecting the sign <br />and alleging that the ordinance is unconstitutional to the extent that the <br />determination of the building inspector is arbitrary, capricious, and incorrect. <br />Plaintiff has pending before the Court a motion for summary judgment on <br />these issues. Defendant has pending before the Court a motion for summary <br />judgment and to allow amendment of the Answer to require Plaintiff to remove <br />the new supports which were erected without a building permit. <br /> <br /> A summary judgment motion is to be granted only when the pleadings, <br />depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits <br />show tha( there is no genuine issue as to any mater/al fact and that either <br />party is entitled to iudgment as a matter of law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. There <br />are no fact issues in dispute in this matter. The only issues are the <br />application of the ordinance and whether the application by the building <br />official was within the provisions of the ordinance. Plaintiff argues that the fair <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />