Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 25, 20101 Volume 41 No. 16 land -use officials who were involved in the approval process." Also, (3) a balancing of the equities favored estoppel because: the city failed to show evidence of harm to an adjoining landowner or any other public interest and there had been no complaints to the city; but Sarpal would have faced costs of $10,000 to $20,000 to move the shed. See also: Ridgewood Development Co. v. State, 294 N.W.2d 288 (Minn. 1980). See also: Matter of Westling Mfg., Inc., 442 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). Case Note: The court noted that, "standing alone, the approv- al of .a building permit based on an incorrect submission would [not necessarily] be sufficient to estop the city from enforcing its zoning law once the error was discovered." In that situation, the "wrongful- conduct" element may not be met as the city would be entitled to rely on the accuracy of the documents submitted by the contractor or the landowner. The situation here, however, differed in that a city employee told Sarpal that he was using the correct survey. Prohibited Use — Corporation Records Images at Residence and Sells Them From Another Address City says activities at residence violate prohibition against operating a business in a residential zone Citation: Flava Works, Inc. v. City of Miami, FL, 609 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2010) The Eleventh U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. ELEVENTH U.S. CIRCUIT (FLORIDA) (06/25/10) —This case addressed the question of whether activities taking place in a resi- dence violated the local prohibition against operating a business in a residential zone. The Background /Facts: Flava Works, Inc. (Flava Works) was a Florida Corporation doing business as CocoDorm.com. It operated an Internet -based Web site of the same name. The Web site trans- mitted images, via webcam, of the residents of 503 Northeast 27th © 2010 Thomson Reuters 9