Laserfiche WebLink
investment in a use that it knew was unlawful at all <br />relevant times. In Halla Nu~se~y, the Court of Appeals <br />reversed a district court that had prevented the city from <br />enforcing a law against a sign for the reason that <br />"respondents `so substantially completed the financial <br />investment and the physical construction ... to obtain <br />vested rights."' 763 N.W.2d at 49. The Court of <br />Appeals reasoned that "The vested-rights doctrine <br />protects developers from changes in zoning laws.... Tha <br />record established that respondents were aware of the <br />judgment and were aware that they were violating the <br />judgment with their first sign. The permit was <br />erroneously issued, but respondents knew that they were <br />requesting a permit for something that the judgment <br />prohibited and respondents are held accountable for <br />attempting to purposely violate the judgment. We <br />conclude that the district court erroneously applied the <br />doctrine of vested rights." Id. <br />a. The Minnesota Supreme Court refused to give effect to a <br />later amendment to a county ordinance, when that <br />ordinance amendment was adopted after (1) the local <br />zoning authority made inadequate findings prior to <br />denying the application, which required the court to send <br />the case back to the zoning authority to make findings, <br />(2) prior to making those findings, the local zoning <br />authority amended the zoning ordinance to impose <br />additional setback requirements an projects like the <br />plaintiff's, (3) the only stated reason for the amendment <br />was the pending request, and (4) the zoning authority <br />then denied the request (which wiled to meet the new <br />setback requirements). Interstate Power Company, Inc. v. <br /> <br />