Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />constructed. See also, Ridgewood Development Co. v. State, 294 <br />N.W.2d 288 (Minn., 1980). <br />The courts have not fixed a definite percentage of the total cost <br />which establishes a vested right to complete and establish a use, <br /> <br />but have held that it depends on the type of project, its location, <br /> <br />ultimate costs, and the extent to which the use is in conformity <br /> <br />with the zoning regulations. Jasaka Co. v. City of S1. Paul, 309 <br /> <br /> <br />N.W.2d 40 (Minn., 1981). See also Stotts v. Wright County, 478 <br /> <br /> <br />N.W.2d 802 (Minn. App., 1991). However, most of the cases do <br /> <br /> <br />recognize that there is a point at which, if the property owner or <br /> <br /> <br />developer has proceeded in reliance on the existing zoning, they <br /> <br /> <br />are entitled to complete the development and establish the use. See <br /> <br />Olsen v. City of Minneapolis, 263 Minn. 1, 115 N.W.2d 734 <br /> <br /> <br />(1962); Jasaka Co.V. City ofS1. Paul, 309 N.W.2d 40 (Minn., <br /> <br /> <br />1981); City ofS1. Paul v. Rein Recreation Inc. ,298 N.W.2d 46 <br /> <br /> <br />(Minn., 1980). More recently, the Supreme Court has warned <br /> <br /> <br />zoning authorities that they do not have "carte blanche" to <br /> <br /> <br />arbitrarily block otherwise lawful development by the passage of <br /> <br /> <br />new zoning law. Interstate Power Co., Inc. v. Nobles County Bd. <br /> <br />ofComm'rs., 617 N.W.2d 566 (Minn., 2000). In that case the <br /> <br /> <br />court noted that application of the new zoning requirement would <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />