INFORMATION #1 02-22-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

land Use and Zoning - legal Review Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 2003 Page II additional 60 days so that the city review process can be completed. It is not acceptable to require an applicant to consent to a 60 day extension as a condition of applying for the approval. American Tower. L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309 (Minn., 2001). However, a letter notifying the applicant of an extension and setting forth the reasons therefore may be sent at any time following receipt of the application and prior to the expiration of the initial 60 day review period. . When denial is recommended, proposed findings of fact should be set forth in staff reports and/or in a separate proposed resolution for adoption by the decision maker, so that the reasons for denial are set forth at the time a request is denied. . If there are no specific findings for denial set forth in the record, the review time should be extended so that formal findings of fact can be made and brought back for adoption prior to the expiration of the 60 day period or any extension thereof. VII. Special Issues A. Vested Rights. . 1. Vested Right to Zoning. The Minnesota courts have consistently held that there can be no right, or vested right, to a specific zoning status. Olsen v. City of Hopkins, 288 Minn. 25, 178 N.W.2d 719 (1970). Therefore, a zoning regulation may generally be applied retroactively to deny a building permit or site plan, even though the application for the building permit or site plan was made prior to the effective date of the new or amended regulation. Rose Cliff Landscape Nursery Inc. v. City of Rosemount, 467 N.W. 2d 641 (Minn. App., 1991); Property Research and Development Co. v. City of Eagan, 289 N.W.2d 157 (Minn., 1980). 2. Vested Right to Use. The point at which a developer or property owner has an absolute right to proceed with the development of property for a specific use has been the subject of considerable litigation throughout the country and within the State of Minnesota. In most cases, the Minnesota courts have found no right to a use that has not been fully established. For example, in Kiges v. City of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 62 N.W.2d 363 (1953), the Supreme Court found that obtaining a building permit, incurring obligations and expenses preliminary to actual construction, and the completion of surface preparation and excavation did not create a vested right which precluded the application of new zoning regulations prohibiting the proposed building. The court held that there would be no right to proceed unless the work done prior to enactment of the regulation was sufficient to constitute an actual existing structure above ground. This rule has been followed in most of the subsequent cases, including Wermager v. Cormorant Tp. Bd., 716