Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/04/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 11 In obtaining a building permit for the shed, the Sarpals needed an "as -built survey" showing the "location of [the] proposed shed." Dr. Sarpal asked a city employee for an "as -built survey" for his Property. The employee gave Dr. Sarpal a document, which the em- ployee said was what Dr. Sarpal needed. The survey was dated be- fore the Sarpals' house was constructed and showed 'a "proposed house" and the 30-foot setback. Dr. Sarpal drew the location of the proposed shed on the survey. As drawn by Dr. Sarpal, the shed did not encroach on the 30-foot setback or the trail easement. The city granted the Sarpals a building permit to construct the shed. When Mr. Sarpal constructed the shed, he located it by mea- suring from the house as it was actually built on his property; he did not measure the location from the lot lines on his property. After the shed was constructed, the city issued a certification of completion. Sometime thereafter, the Sarpals received notice from the City that the Sarpals' shed encroached upon the trail easement and the 30-foot setback. The Sarpals applied for a variance, which the city denied. The city told the Sarpals that the shed would have to be moved. The Sarpals never moved the shed. In 2008, the City brought a legal action against the Sarpals. The action alleged a violation of the city code, trespass, and nuisance. It asked the court to order the Sarpals to remove the shed from the easement area. The Sarpals argued that the city was equitably estopped from enforcing its zoning ordinance against them because the city pro- vided the survey on which Dr. Sarpal relied in applying for his building permit. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and de- ciding the matter on the law alone, the court issued summary judg- ment in favor of the Sarpals. The court dismissed all of the city's claims against the Sarpals. The city appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. The city again appealed. DECISION: Reversed; matter remanded. The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that: "A simple mistake by a government official does not constitute the wrongful conduct 'necessary to establish [a defense] of equitable estoppel." In other words, the city could not be estopped from enforcing zoning laws because of the mistake by the city employee, which contributed to the Sarpals' zoning violation. The court explained that the Sarpals, in seeking equitable estop- pel against the city, had to establish four elements: (1) "wrongful © 2011 Thomson Reuters 3