Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Z.oning Bulletin <br /> <br />The court found that "exceptional and extraordinary equities" were () <br />not involved. The "nearly four-decade delay in developing portions of <br />[Sebastian's subdivision in the county] created a foreseeable possibility <br />that zoning regulations, applicable governmental perso:nnel and the at- <br />titudes of same would change." Moreover, Sebastian had not suffered a <br />detrimental reliance on the P & Z's -prior approvals; "the slow pace of <br />development of the property ha[d] been directly attributable to Sebas- <br />tian's actions (or inactions)." Also, the P & Z was not duty bound to <br />continue the improper a'cts of the preceding decades. Nor did it "act ar- <br />bitrarily [i.e., in excess of gra~ted powers] when it (belatedly) began to <br />enforce applicable zoning laws ...." In light of those findings, the court <br />held that equitable estoppel was not applicable in the case. <br /> <br />See also: Weiand v. Board of Trustees of Kentucky Retirement Systems, <br />2S S.W3d 88,25 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1021 (Ky. 2000). <br /> <br />See also: St. Luke Hospitals, Inc. v. Com., 186 S. W3d 746 (Ky. Ct. App. <br />2005), review denied, (Apr. 12, 2006). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court said that without a one-acre residential zone, <br />Sebastian had no grounds for his development in an A-R zone. His <br />remedy was to seek a zone map amendment or a text amendment. <br /> <br />(-") , <br /> <br />. '" r/ <br /> <br />Time for Determination-County denies <br />developer's application for a preliminary plat <br />approval <br /> <br />, I <br /> <br />Developer argues application was approved because denial <br />was not within statutory 60-day time period <br /> <br />Citation: Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec County Bd. of Com'rs, 2008 <br />WL 4346312 (Minn. 2008) <br /> <br />MINNEsOTA (09/25/08)-On July 26, 2006, Calm Waters, LLC <br />(CWL) submitted an application for a preliminary plat approval of a <br />proposed suqdivision to the countY planning commission (the "Commis- <br />sion" ). When doing so, CWL failed to enclose the "township approval <br />"letter" required by the coUnty's application form. Consequently, on Au- <br />gust 8, the Commission returned the application as incomplete. CWL re- <br />submitted an identical application on August 14, again not enclosing a <br />township approval letter. CWL insisted that" its application was complete (~ <br />without the letter because neither state law nor the county platting ordi- <br />nance (the "Ordinance") required such a letter. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />.___. . _u_.. __.,1 <br /> <br />66 <br />