INFORMATION #1 02-22-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

land Use and Zoning - legal Review Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 2003 Page I 2 F.2d 1211 (8th Cir.,1983), which held that a landowner does not have a vested right to develop property in accordance with the laws that existed prior to a change in the zoning regulation if the landowner has not progressed sufficiently with construction. In that case, the landowner had constructed a sewer system for the proposed use, but had not begun physical construction of the structure. See also, Ridgewood Development Co. v. State, 294 N.W.2d 288 (Minn., 1980). The courts have not fixed a definite percentage of the total cost which establishes a vested right to complete and establish a use, but have held that it depends on the type of project, its location, ultimate costs, and the extent to which the use is in conformity with the zoning regulations. Jasaka Co. v. City of St. Paul, 309 N.W.2d 40 (Minn., 1981). See also Stotts v. Wright County, 478 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. App., 1991). However, most of the cases do recognize that there is a point at which, if the property owner or developer has proceeded in reliance on the existing zoning, they are entitled to complete the development and establish the use. See Olsen v. City of Minneapolis, 263 Minn. 1, 115 N.W.2d 734 (1962); Jasaka Co.v. City of St. Paul, 309 N.W.2d 40 (Minn., 1981); City of St. Paul v. Rein Recreation Inc. , 298 N.W.2d 46 (Minn., 1980). More recently, the Supreme Court has warned zoning authorities that they do not have "carte blanche" to arbitrarily block otherwise lawful development by the passage of new zoning law. Interstate Power Co.. Inc. v. Nobles County Bd. of Comm'rs., 617 N.W.2d 566 (Minn., 2000). In that case the court noted that application of the new zoning requirement would result in a "manifest injustice" that warrants deviation from the usual rule of applying the law as amended. 3. Estoppel. Related to the concept of vested rights is the theory that government can be estopped from enforcing its building and zoning ordinances in certain circumstances. The central concept to the doctrine of equitable estoppel is inducement. The claim in these cases is that the zoning authority should be estopped from preventing a developer or landowner from proceeding with an activity that the zoning authority induced, for instance, by issuing a building permit. The general rule is that issuance of a building permit under a zoning ordinance falls within the governmental rather than the proprietary functions of a municipality, and that estoppel will not lay against a municipality for its actions performed in a governmental capacity. Kiges v. City of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 62N.W.2d 363 (1953); Frank's Nursery Sales. Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604 (Minn., 1980); Ridgewood Development Co. v. State, 294 N.W.2d 288 (Minn., 1980); Dege v. City of Maplewood, 416 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. App., 1987). However, in certain circumstances a vested right may be established under an invalid building permit. See Snyder