Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2005

Home

Page 4--Junel0,2005 feet high. The sign said "liquor," and had been there since the 1970s. In 1992, the county enacted an ordinance prohibiting pole signs. In 2001, the nine-year amortization period ended and Maida's sign became illegal. After the county received a complaint about the sign, it told Maida to either eliminate the sign or apply for a variance, Maida applied for a variance. After finding no special ch:cumstances to warrant a vahance, the county's board of supervisors voted to deny it. Maida sued, and the court ruled in favor of the county. Maida appealed, arguing the'county was denying him equal Protection of the law because it was not enforcing the sign prohibition against other businesses. DECISION: A/lhnmed. Maida was not denied equal protection of the law. The Equal Protection Clause only required similarly situated people to re- ceive equal treatment. The county's sign ordinance banned all pole signs. There was no evidence supporting Maida's assertion the sign would not be subject to a removal threat if ir said "muffins" or "antiques'.' instead of"liquor." Maida also failed to present any evidence ~howing the c~'unty ~anted a vari- ance to other similarly situated property owners. '"' At best, Maida pointed out a pole sign for a restaurant had not been re- moved. However, the county's enforcement program was complaint driven. The county received a complaint about Maida's sign, and there was no com- plaint against the restaurant's sign. It was not a denial of equal protection when one guilty person was pros- ecuted while others equally guilty, were not. To show a denial of equal protec- tion, Maida had to prove he had been singled out deliberately for prosecution on the basis of some suspect reason. The prosecution of only those against whom a complaint was made was not suspect discrimination. see also: City of Long Beach v. Workers". Comp. Appeals Board, 126 CaLApP. 4th 298 (2005). · see also: Manduley v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. 4th 537 (2002). 96 Conditional Use Permit-- County grants permit to shore land development Landowner association claims county doesn't have authority to do so Citation: Dead Lake Association Inc. v. Otter Tail County, Supreme Court of Minnesota, No. A03-750 (2005) MINNESOTA (04/28/05) -- R. Murray partnership submirted an application for a conditional use permit for construction of a cluster development or a planned unit development on Dead Lake. The state Department of Natural Resources classified Dead Lake as a "natural environment lake." The county ultimately ~anted the requested permit. Dead Lake Association, a group of landowners, sued. It argued the county had © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please cai{ (617) 542-0048.