City of Hutchinson v. Otto
| Decision Date | 07 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 45429,45429 |
| Citation | 306 Minn. 136,235 N.W.2d 604 |
| Parties | CITY OF HUTCHINSON, Respondent, v. Lowell D. OTTO, Appellant, First National Bank of Hutchinson, Defendant. DON PETERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. Lowell D. OTTO, Appellant, First National Bank of Hutchinson, Defendant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The refusal of the city of Hutchinson to issue a building permit for failure of the applicant to submit plans and specifications detailing the proposed construction was not unreasonable or arbitrary.
2. Unauthorized statements allegedly made by a city attorney during negotiations to settle a controversy concerning the issuance of a building permit could not estop the city from rejecting the application for the permit.
Nicklaus & Leatham, Robert A. Nicklaus and William G. Golla, Chaska, for appellant.
Keefe, Schantzen & Bradford and Curtis M. Bradford, Hutchinson, for City of Hutchinson.
Peterson & Gilmer, Hutchinson, for Peterson Const. Co., Inc.
Heard before SHERAN, C.J., and OTIS and KELLY, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
Lowell D. Otto appeals from an order of the district court which (1) authorized the city of Hutchinson to raze immediately a building owned by Otto and (2) denied Otto's motions for an order directing the city to issue to him a building permit for the remodeling of his building or, in the alternative, to inform him in writing of the information he needed to submit in order to obtain a building permit. We affirm.
In January 1960, Mr. Otto moved the house in question onto a lot previously owned by him and had it placed on movers' pilings. There was no foundation, and the house was not connected to sewer or water. Thereafter, there ensued a long-lived dispute between Otto and the city as to whether Otto should be issued a building permit which would allow him to build a foundation and a basement for the house and remodel it so that it would be habitable.
In December 1969, the litigation which culminated in the order appealed from was begun when the Hutchinson City Council, acting pursuant to Minn.St. 463.15 to 463.26, issued an order declaring that the house was beyond repair and must be removed by February 1, 1970. The city moved the district court for summary enforcement of that order and Otto counterclaimed, seeking money damages from the city for the destruction of the drainage from his property.
In January 1973, trial was had on the motion for summary enforcement, and in February 1973, the trial court entered an order modifying the order of the city council to allow Otto 6 months to correct the hazardous condition of the building and bring it into compliance with building and zoning codes.
In October 1973, the city again moved for an order authorizing it to raze the house. In January 1974, the trial court entered an order requiring Otto to obtain utility easements to the property and supply to the city by March 1, 1974, copies of contracts for renovations necessary to bring the building up to code.
On May 24, 1974, the city renewed its motion. On May 28, 1974, the trial court entered an order requiring that the city building inspector, on or before May 29, 1974, supply Otto with information regarding the items necessary to be furnished to the building inspector so that he could determine whether a building permit should issue, and requiring that Otto supply that information to the building inspector on or before June 9, 1974. The same day the order issued, Elden Willard, city building inspector, informed Otto by letter that he must submit two copies of plans and specifications 'in sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of the code and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.' On June 10, 1974, Otto submitted certain documents which he contends were plans and specifications. On June 14, Inspector Willard informed Otto's attorney by letter that the plans submitted were not of sufficient clarity. On June 17, Otto's attorney wrote to Inspector Willard asking him to explain in what regard the plans and specifications were deficient and asking him to pose any specific questions he might have. On June 20, Inspector Willard replied, suggesting that Otto and his attorney see a licensed architect or engineer to have design and drafting work done and stating that his office did not do design work for builders.
On June 28, the city renewed its motion for an order authorizing it to raze the building, and Otto thereafter served and filed a motion for an order requiring the city to issue a building permit or, in the alternative, to furnish Otto with written reasons for its denial of the permit or furnish Otto with information regarding the items necessary to be furnished to the building inspector before the permit could issue. Both motions were to be heard on July 12, but before that date, Otto and his attorney met with Inspector Willard and the Hutchinson city attorney and reached a negotiated settlement, agreeable to all of them. However, the Hutchinson City Council rejected the proposed settlement agreement.
On September 13, Otto renewed his motions of July 12, which had been taken under advisement. After a hearing on the motions of both parties, the trial court, on September 17, 1974, entered the order appealed from.
The issues before us on appeal are:
1. Was the city's failure to issue Otto a building permit until he submitted detailed plans and specifications for the proposed work and its failure to explain to him the exact data it wished included in the plans and specifications arbitrary or unreasonable, or did it deny him equal protection of the laws?
2. Did the statements made by the city attorney in the settlement negotiations of July 1974 estop the city from denying Otto's application for a building permit?
1. Otto's position on this appeal is that he is entitled to a building permit as a matter of right and that the city's action in conditioning the issuance of a permit on his submission of more detailed plans and specifications exceeds the limits of the police power. That the municipal police power is subject to the limitations of due process and equal protection is beyond question. Similarly, there is no question that neither the requirements for obtaining a building permit nor the method of enforcing those requirements may be arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory. 1 When those general rules are applied to the facts of this case, however, we believe that the city acted well within the limits of the police power.
The State Building Code 2 makes the submission of detailed plans and specifications a condition precedent to the issuance of a building permit. 3 Apparently, appellant does not seriously contend that the Code provision is facially arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory. Nor could he do so, as we have previously upheld the constitutionality of very similar regulations. See, State v. Clarke Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 238 Minn. 192, 56 N.W.2d 667 (1952). 4
Appellant's main argument is that the plans-and-specifications provisions of the State Building Code are arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory as applied to him. Appellant claims (1) that he did substantially comply with the plans-and-specifications requirement; (2) that the city building inspector unreasonably refused to state objections to the plans and specifications submitted; (3) that the city had some ulterior motive for denying the permit; (4) that no one else was required to submit formal plans; and (5) that the city must issue a permit because it allowed him to have the house moved onto the lot in the first instance.
The trial court rejected Otto's substantial-compliance claim after an evidentiary hearing on the matter. We hold that the record contains ample evidence to support the trial court's finding that the documents submitted by Otto do not comply with the provisions of the State Building Code. The only plans included in the documents are for the deck and basement; no plans for remodeling of the house itself were supplied. No plot plan was included as specifically required by the Code. Of the plans that were submitted, only one was drawn to scale as required by the Code. The balance of the documents submitted by Otto are bids and estimates submitted by plumbers, electricians, and contractors. They do not state in any detail what work is to be done, and the materials to be used are rather generally described. There is ample authority for the proposition that such documents do not comply with a requirement that plans and specifications be submitted with an application for a building permit. See, Mills v. White, 304 Ill. 256, 136 N.E. 741 (1922); People ex rel. Delgado v. Morris, 334 Ill.App. 557, 79 N.E.2d 839 (1948); Karl V. Wolsey Co., Inc. v. Building Inspector of Bedford, 324 Mass. 419, 86 N.E.2d 644 (1949). Particularly in light of the fact that the house in question has been at its present location for 15 years, we do not believe that Otto's actions constitute substantial compliance with the State Building Code.
Otto's second contention is that Inspector Willard...
To continue reading
Request your trial