Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 25, 2010 I Volume 4 I No. 12 that Halla's new sign exceeded the Code's size requirement for signs. The city planner had issued the sign permit to Halla in error. Halla filed a legal complaint in court against the city. Among other things, Halla argued that it "acquired a vested right to complete and use the sign." In other words, Halla maintained that because it sub- stantially completed construction of the sign in good faith reliance upon the permit issued by the city planner, it had a vested right to use the sign in accordance with the terms of the permit. The district court agreed with Halla. It held that "because Halla had substantially completed its sign at the time the City issued the stop - work order, Halla had vested rights to use the sign." The city appealed. The court of appeals reversed the district court. It held that Halla did not have vested rights to use the sign because Halla was aware that construction of the sign was prohibited by the relevant provisions of the Code. Halla appealed. The Court's Decision: Judgment of court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that Halla did not acquire a vested right to complete and use the sign. The court explained that it typically applied the vested rights doc- trine to situations where a landowner substantially completes a project in reliance on a permitted use for the land and that use is subsequent- ly prohibited by a change in law. The court emphasized that "vested rights do not arise from an erroneously issued building permit." "[T]he vested rights doctrine does not apply when a landowner substantially completes a project in reliance on an erroneously issued sign permit." Here, the city did not change zoning laws after the permit was issued to Halla thus making the sign illegal. Rather, Halla was erroneously is- sued a sign permit. Because the permit was erroneously issued, it con- ferred no vested property right —despite the fact that Halla made sub- stantial progress in construction of the sign in reliance on that permit. See also: Snyder v. City of Minneapolis, 441 N.W.2d 781 (Minn. 1989). See also: Ridgewood Development Co. v. State, 294 N.W.2d 288 (Minn. 1980). Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that "[Dither state supreme courts that have considered the issue have all concluded that vested rights do not arise from an erroneously issued building permit." Case Note: The court also held that the sign violated the terms of a 1997 stipulation and judgment between the city and Halla. That stipulation prohibited illuminated signs and required Halla's signs to be in compliance with the Code. © 2010 Thomson Reuters 175