4300 Watertown - Condemnation Hearing Info

Home Browse Search

r • rezoned the area to require five-acre building sites. That rezoning precluded • plaintiffs' planned development on the remainder of the land served by the newly constructed the sewage system. Seeking to develop smaller lots on the rezoned area, Plaintiffs claimed that they had a "vested" right in the land use that was • prohibited by the new ordinance. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Minnesota law, disagreed: • According to the latest pronouncement of the Minnesota Courts on the subject, the focus of the inquiry is "whether a developer has progressed sufficiently with this construction to acquire a vested right to complete it." It is said in this connection that "the mere possession of a • building permit, the incurring of some expense and the assumption of obligations preliminary to construction, such as excavation, create no vested right," nor do "expenditures associated with acquisition of the property, the removal of trees, [or] the grading of land. . . ." [T]he • dispositive issue is simply the extent to which the physical aspects of the project, or at least binding commitments therefor, have gone forward. 716 F.2d at 1215 (emphasis supplied) (citations omitted). The Court found that, • even if the plaintiffs had "always intended to develop all of their land into lots of less than five acres in size, the actual implementation of those plans had not reached • such a stage as to created a 'vested' right in the continuation thereof." Id. (emphasis in original). The Court reasoned that no lot had been sold or contracted for sale, the land was still used for agricultural purposes, and the construction of the • sewer system only vested the right to complete the sewer system, not the entire development. • Drawing from the Eighth Circuit Court's analysis, Respondent here has not invested in or developed his property sufficiently to acquire a "vested" right in the • 8 App.Page 11 of 35