Laserfiche WebLink
June 10, 2011 I Volume 5 ( No. 11 Zoning Bulletin <br />conduct" on the part of an authorized city agent; (2) that the Sar- <br />pals reasonably relied on the wrongful conduct; (3) that the Sarpals <br />incurred a unique expenditure in reliance on the wrongful conduct; <br />and (4) that the balance of equities weighed in favor of estoppel. <br />The city had argued that the Sarpals could not establish the first <br />of those necessary elements: wrongful conduct by the city employ- <br />ee. The Supreme Court of Minnesota agreed. It said that "wrongful <br />conduct" required "some degree of malfeasance." Wrongful con- <br />duct could not be established by "simple inadvertence, mistake, or <br />imperfect conduct." It found that, here, "the City's actions did not <br />constitute anything other than a simple mistake." The city employ- <br />ee made a mistake in giving the Sarpals a survey that was not, in <br />fact, an as -built survey. The court also found that the city's building <br />inspector did not act wrongfully when reviewing the plans submit- <br />ted by the Sarpals, as "there was no reason why the City should <br />have noticed or corrected the Sarpals' error, or declined to issue a <br />permit on the basis of the Sarpals' error." <br />Having found the Sarpals failed to satisfy the first element of eq- <br />uitable estoppel, the court concluded that the city was not estopped <br />from enforcing its zoning ordinance against the Sarpals. The court <br />remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. <br />See also: Mesaba Aviation Division of Halvorson of Duluth, Inc. v. <br />Itasca County, 258 N.W.2d 877 (Minn. 1977). <br />See also: Brown v. Minnesota Dept. of Public Welfare, 368 N.W.2d <br />906 (Minn. 1985). <br />See also: Ridgewood Development Co. v. State, 294 N.W.2d 288 <br />(Minn. 1980). <br />See also: Bond v. Commissioner of Revenue, 691 N.W.2d 831 <br />(Minn. 2005). <br />Conditions —Board Requires, as a Condition of <br />Subdivision Approval, Transfer of Open Space <br />to Town <br />Applicant argues condition violates_state_st.atutory law <br />Citation: Collings v. Planning Bd. of Stow, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 447, <br />2011 WL 1744264 (2011) <br />MASSACHSUETTS (05/10/11)—This case- addressed the issue of - <br />"whether, as a condition of granting approval, [a municipal planning <br />4 © 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />