George Dege, d.b.a. Dege Garden Center v. City of Maplewood

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

416 N.W.2d 854; 1987 Minn. App. Lexis 5737

December 29, 1987

Background:

¨ In 1971, Albert Dege obtained a special use permit to construct a parking lot adjacent to his business, zoned for residential use. The permit allowed customer parking, but prohibited truck or trailer storage. The permit required a public hearing prior to any modifications.

¨ In 1986, Dege obtained a building permit to construct a trailer garage on the parking lot.

¨ After construction had started, neighbors went to the city complaining that the garage violated conditions of the special use permit.

¨ The City issued a stop order on the garage and ordered it to be removed.

¨ Dege applied for an amendment to the permit so as to complete the garage. It was denied.

¨ Dege asserts that he changed his position in reliance upon the building permit to the extent is would be inequitable for the city to require the garage to be removed. He spent $10,000 thus far in construction and it would cost $1,500 for the structure to be removed.

¨ Dege filed a declaratory judgment against the City, moving the stop order should be removed.

Legal Question:

May the City stop construction of the garage? Yes.

Reasoning of the Court:

¨ Dege’s knowledge of the 1971 permit is presumed a matter of law.

¨ Ridgewood Development Co. Test:

“A local govt. exercising its zoning powers will be estopped when a property owner (1) relying in good faith (2) upon some act or omission of the govt. (3) has made such a substantial change in position or incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights acquired.”

¨ Dege did not act in good faith because he was aware of the provisions in the special use permit.

¨ The dollar amount expended on the project does not create enough vested rights to outweigh the public’s interest.

¨ Mere possession of a building permit and incurring of expenses does not create vested rights sufficient to justify estoppel.

Summary of the Court:

According to the Ridgewood precedent, a municipality could only be estopped if it acted wrongfully. Estoppel is available as a defense against the govt. if its wrongful conduct threatens to work a serious injustice and if the public’s interest would not be unduly damaged by the estoppel. Dege’s reliance on the building permit does not outweigh the public’s interest in having the zoning regulations enforced uniformly.