07/01/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

May 10, 2010 i Volume 41 No. 9 Zoning Bulletin by Aichinger on misrepresentations by the Planning Director was "unreasonable." The court explained that "the doctrine of municipal estoppel is an equitable doctrine that has been applied to municipalities `to prevent unjust enrichment and to accord fairness to those who bargain with the agents of municipalities for the promises of the municipalities."' The court further explained that in order for Aichinger to successful- ly argue municipal estoppel—thereby preventing enforcement of the Merger Ordinance against her Property, Aichinger had to prove four elements: (1) town officials made "a false representation or conceal- ment of material facts... with knowledge of those facts"; (2) Aichinger was "ignorant of the truth of the matter'; (3) the representation made by town officials was "made with the intention of inducing [Aichinger] to rely upon it"; and (4) Aichinger was "induced to rely upon the rep- resentation to h[er] injury" The court found that Aichinger failed to prove the fourth element. (Having found the fourth element failed, the court did not need to con- sider the other elements.) The court said that 'a party's reliance upon the representation must be reasonable." Here, the court found Aich- inger failed to prove that she "reasonably" relied upon the inaccurate information provided to her by the Planning Director. Aichinger's reli- ance was, in fact, "unreasonable" because she "knew or should have known that the representations made by town official were materially incorrect.," This was evident by the facts that: she had been aware of a 1983 court decision, which treated the property as a single lot; and a review of the town's regulations would have revealed that the Merger Ordinance was "still in effect and applicable to the [P]roperty." See also: Thomas v. Toum of Hooksett, IS3 N.H. 717, 903 A.2d 963 (2006). Case Note: The court's decision addressed several other argu- ments, but this summary focuses only on the issue of municipal estoppel. Variance—Landowner purchases nonconforming lots then applies for variance Town denies variance because landowner "created his own hardship" by purchasing the nonconforming lots Citation: Lamb v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Taunton, 76 Mass. App. Ct..S13, 923 N.E.2d 1078 (2010) 8. m 2010 Thomson Reuters 50