Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />VII. Special Issues <br />A. Vested Rights. <br />1. Vested Right to Zoning. The Minnesota courts have consistently <br /> <br /> <br />held that there can be no right, or vested right, to a specific zoning <br /> <br /> <br />status. Olsen v. City of Hopkins, 288 Minn. 25, 178 N.W.2d 719 <br /> <br /> <br />(1970). Therefore, a zoning regulation may generally be applied <br /> <br /> <br />retroactively to deny a building permit or site plan, even though the <br /> <br /> <br />application for the building permit or site plan was made prior to <br /> <br /> <br />the effective date of the new or amended regulation. Rose Cliff <br /> <br /> <br />Landscape Nursery Inc. v. City of Rosemount, 467 N.W. 2d 641 <br /> <br /> <br />(Minn. App., 1991); Property Research and Development Co. v. <br /> <br />City of Eagan, 289 N.W.2d 157 (Minn., 1980). <br /> <br /> <br />Vested Right to Use. The point at which a developer or property <br /> <br /> <br />owner has an absolute right to proceed with the development of <br /> <br /> <br />property for a specific use has been the subject of considerable <br /> <br />litigation throughout the country and within the State of <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minnesota. In most cases, the Minnesota courts have found no <br /> <br /> <br />right to a use that has not been fully established. For example, in <br /> <br />Kiges v. City ofSt. Paul, 240 Minn. 522,62 N.W.2d 363 (1953), <br /> <br /> <br />the Supreme Court found that obtaining a building permit, <br /> <br /> <br />incurring obligations and expenses preliminary to actual <br /> <br /> <br />construction, and the completion of surface preparation and <br /> <br />. <br />