CCP 06-15-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- ~ Arden Hills City Council . June 15, 1992 Page 2 Although this section appears to address the expiration of building permits, when it is read in the context of the remaining provisions of Section VIII(E), it seems to have more clearly been intended to address the expiration of site plan approvals. In my judgment, the provisions of Section VIII(E)(7) mean that site plan approvals will expire within one year of the date of approval if a building permit has not been issued within that time or if the applicant has not requested an extension of the site plan approval within one year of the date of the original site plan approval. This is the meaning that was given to Section VIII(E)(7) by City Staff and is the reason why Mr. Foster was asked to re-app1y. Mr. Foster's attorney has suggested that his client has acquired a vested right in the issuance of a building permit because his client has incurred substantial costs in reliance upon Ci ty Council approval. In analyzing claims made upon a vested right theory, it is important to understand specifically how much cost has been incurred in reliance upon City action. I had anticipated receipt of a detailed Affidavit by Thursday afternoon which identified the costs incurred by Mr. Foster. As of 2:00 p.m. today, I have not received such an Affidavit. Therefore, it becomes more difficult to provide the City with specific legal . advice. A right becomes vested when it has arisen upon a contract or a transaction in the nature of a contract and liabilities under that right have been so far determined that nothing remains to be done by the party asserting the right. Ridgewood Development Company v. State, 294 N.W.2d 288 (Minn. 1980) , There are circumstances in which a property owner who has been issued a building permit may acquire a vested right to complete the construction of a project. In general, the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated: l. A building permit may not be arbitrarily revoked where the owner has incurred substantial expense in reliance on the permit. Kiges v. City of st. Paul, 62 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. 1953) . It may be possible to expand this doctrine to inClude circumstances involving only the approval of a site plan, However, as of this date, I have not found any cases to support this broader interpretation. 2. The granting of a building permit does not preclude the adoption of new zoning regulations which prohibit the erection of a building if the new zoning regulations are adopted to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Kiges, supra. As applied to our case, this rule would require the City to review the planning . process which has occurred to date and determine if the