Following a ruling by the appeals court that Halla’s illuminated sign did not comply with a 1997 stipulation and judgment and that Halla did not have a vested right to use the sign, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.
The building at issue was constructed in 1994 without a building permit. In 1997 Halla and the City entered into a stipulation to resolve disputes over the building. Regarding signage, the stipulation stated that a directional sign may be placed near the road that was not to be illuminated, and that the inaction of the City to enforce aspects of the stipulation would not create a waiver or amendment to the stipulation. The stipulation further stated in addition to specific sign allowances, that one may be constructed if a permit is issued. In 2005, Halla was granted a permit to construct a larger illuminated sign, but the planner contended s/he was not aware of the stipulation and did not notice that it would be electronic. Construction began on the new sign, but when nonconformities with the stipulation and judgment and ordinances where noticed by the City, a stop work order was issued.
Halla contends that they could build any sign under the 1997 stipulation and judgment, so long as they received a permit. The Supreme Court found this to be an erroneous assumption, as it would allow Halla to violate any zoning ordinance, so long as they receive a permit. The court found that the newer sign being built under the erroneously issued permit is violative of the 1997 stipulation and judgment and zoning ordinances due to its size and characteristics, and thus could not be permitted.
Halla further contended that they had a vested right to complete their new sign, as they had substantially completed it by the time a stop work order was issued. The court held that vested property rights doctrine does not apply when the substantial performance was made in reliance on an erroneously issued sign permit.
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. City of Chanhassen, 2010 WL 1791163 (Minn. 5/6/2010).
The opinion can be here.
