Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />excavation did not create a vested right which precluded the <br /> <br />application of new zoning regulations prohibiting the proposed <br />building. The court held that there would be no right to proceed <br />unless the work done prior to enactment of the regulation was <br /> <br />sufficient to constitute an actual existing structure above ground. <br /> <br />This rule has been followed in most of the subsequent cases, <br /> <br />including Wermager v. Cormorant To. Bd., 716 F.2d 1211 (8th <br /> <br />Cir.,1983), which held that a landowner does not have a vested <br /> <br />right to develop property in accordance with the laws that existed <br /> <br />prior to a change in the zoning regulation if the landowner has not <br /> <br />progressed sufficiently with construction. In that case, the <br /> <br />landowner had constructed a large, common sewer system to <br /> <br />accommodate development of a ninety acre parcel. The system <br /> <br />was installed with the cooperation with the local watershed district <br /> <br /> <br />and partially funded with State and Federal grants. Then, before <br /> <br /> <br />the lots that the system was designed and built for could be platted, <br /> <br /> <br />the Town adopted a five acre minimum lot size. In spite of the fact <br /> <br />that most of the investment in the common septic system would be <br /> <br />wasted, and the value of the land cut by several hundred thousand <br /> <br /> <br />dollars, the Court found no vested right to proceed with platting the <br /> <br /> <br />smaller lots for which the common sewer system was designed and <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />