5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

investment in a use that it knew was unlawful at all relevant times. In Halla Nursery, the Court of Appeals reversed a district court that had prevented the city from enforcing a law against a sign for the reason that "respondents `so substantially completed the financial investment and the physical construction ... to obtain vested rights."' 763 N.W.2d at 49. The Court of Appeals reasoned that "The vested-rights doctrine protects developers from changes in zoning laws.... The record established that respondents were aware of the judgment and were aware that they were violating the judgment with their first sign. The permit was erroneously issued, but respondents knew that they were requesting a permit for something that the judgment prohibited and respondents are held accountable for attempting to purposely violate the judgment. We conclude that the district court erroneously applied the doctrine of vested rights." Id. 3. When enforcement of the amendment results in a particular kind of "manifest injustice," such as the injustice that results when property owner overturns a denial decision because the findings are inadequate, but the local government then changes its law for the purpose of achieving the same result under a more favorable legal standard. a. The Minnesota Supreme Court refused to give effect to a later amendment to a county ordinance, when that ordinance amendment was adopted after (1) the local zoning authority made inadequate findings prior to denying the application, which required the court to send the case back to the zoning authority to make findings, {2) prior to making those findings, the local zoning authority amended the zoning ordinance to impose additional setback requirements on projects like the plaintiff s, (3) the only stated reason for the amendment was the pending request, and (4) the zoning authority then denied the request (which failed to meet the new setback requirements). Interstate Power Company, Inc. v. S