In 2005, while her late father was ill with cancer, the Plaintiff purchased the property on which he had operated an auto sales business at the location under a conditional use permit (CUP) issued by the City so that the landlord would not evict her father, and from 2004 to early 2005 (when her father died) the Plaintiff assisted her father operating the auto sales lot and detailing business. The CUP, which was originally issued in 1999, was modified in 2002 to provide that “[a]t such time as there is a new owner or operator of this business, a new permit shall be required.” Following her father’s death, the Plaintiff applied for a CUP to operate an outdoor sales and auto detailing shop on the property. The Zoning Committee recommended denial of the application based upon complaints related to illegally parked cars, high traffic, broken glass, alleged illegal operation of a towing business, lack of compliance with the City Code, the fact that the lot did not comply with minimum lot size, and the inability to meet vehicular access standards. The Planning Commission subsequently denied the CUP based upon the Zoning Committee’s findings and recommendation. The City Council also denied the request, and the Plaintiff subsequently reapplied for a CUP which was similarly denied for the same reasons. On appeal to the City Council, the Plaintiff asserted that the denial amounted to a financial hardship because she attempted to sell the business to people who wanted to run the business as a car lot similar to how to father operated it, but the denial was impeding her ability to sell the property. Finding again that the Plaintiff did not meet the standards for a conditional use permit, the application was again denied. Plaintiff then filed suit in federal court alleging violations of due process and equal protection, and inverse condemnation (taking).
The District Court dismissed the Due Process claim because the Plaintiff could not establish that she had a protected property interest. This is because the City Code requires that prior to the issuance of a CUP the applicant must meet certain conditions. Since the Plaintiff could not meet all of those conditions, and therefore was not entitled to the CUP as a matter of right. Even if the Plaintiff had been able to claim a cognizable property interest, the Court said she could not satisfy the second element of a due process claim – that the City’s actions in denying the application were “truly irrational.” The Court noted that the Plaintiff never demonstrated the “exceptional undue hardship that her father had when he received the CUP. Rather, the Court said, she merely alleged a financial hardship because she could not sell the business.
The court quickly dismissed the Equal Protection claim because the Plaintiff could not demonstrate that any similarly-situated applicant was treated differently. Turning to the takings claim, the Court concluded that even if her claim was ripe, the Plaintiff failed to offer any authority supporting the elevation of the CUP to private property for purposes of an unconstitutional taking. In fact, the Court noted that under Minnesota law, “a conditional use permit is a government entitlement and not subject to a takings claim.” Further, the Court noted that the Plaintiff did not establish that in denying the CUP, the City deprived her of all economically beneficial use of the property, and actually, the Code does allow for a variety of other uses of the subject property.
Snaza v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 2008 WL 323212 (D.Minn. 2/5/200 
