Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> prior zoning or platting. As in Wermager, he has farmed it continuously for 20 years, <br /> • has not sold or contracted to sell any of the individual parcels, has not applied for <br /> building permits to develop the smaller sites, or invested significantly to develop the <br /> property. He merely, at the time of the construction of his residence, installed <br /> • <br /> telephone cable and graded to prevent flooding on his driveway. Respondent <br /> himself characterizes his investment above the <br /> acquisition cost of the property as <br /> • "limited." Under Wermager and supporting Minnesota caselaw, Respondent has <br /> not acquired a vested right in the land division memorialized in the Mark One plat. <br /> 3. Estoppel <br /> • <br /> The doctrine of vested rights is often used in connection with that of estoppel <br /> as alternative ways of analyzing conflicts between developers and government <br /> • regarding land use. However, even under the doctrine of estoppel, Respondent's <br /> argument fails. <br /> The major difference between the doctrines concerns the <br /> • court's focus. While a court applying a theory of <br /> equitable estoppel investigates the loss to the developer <br /> if he is not permitted to finish his project, in vested rights <br /> analysis the court asks whether a developer has <br /> progressed sufficiently with his construction to acquire a <br /> • vested right to complete it. <br /> Ridgewood Dev. Co. v. State of Minnesota, 294 N.W.2d 288, 294 (Minn. 1980). The <br /> Ridgewood Court indicated that a local government may be estopped from applying <br />• <br /> zoning changes to a certain property if: <br /> 1) the property owner relies in good faith <br />• 2) on an act or omission of government and <br /> 3) the landowner incurs extensive expense <br />• 9 <br /> App. Page 12 of 35 <br />