Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2007

Home

August 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No, 16 Equitable estoppel essemially amounted to an application ,of the rules of fair play. The court noted that "[a] citizen [was] entitled to rely on the assurances or commitments of a zoning authority and if he [did], the zoning authority [was] bound by its representations, whether they be in the form of words or deeds." The doctrine of equitable estoppel, however, could only be applied againsr a governmental entity under ex- ceptional circumsrances. The appeals court found that: the county's issuance of the required permits to the original owners, well before Castro purchased rheir home from them with the addirion already built; Castro's continued use of the addition; arid, Castro's reliance upon the validity of the per- mits issued during a period of over twenty-five years presented such an exceptional circumstance. The court st'ated that "it would be un- conscionable to deny Castro the protections afforded by the doctrine under the circumstances." The county initially issued permits for the construction of the family room addition and subsequently issued additional permits for the im- provement and maintenance of the addition over a period of 25 years with the knowledge that Castro was incurring a substantial investment of time and money. Castro relied on the belief that the building permits were properly issued, and to have to 'demolish his family room because of the new setback requirements would have been" grossly unfair." The decision of the lower court was reversed. Variance-Homeowner claims board's variance decision was without basis Board claims proposed garage would be unsafe due to proximity to road Citation: Schmidt ll. County of Douglas, 2007 WL 2034505 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) MINNESOTA (07/17/07)-Schmidt owned property containing a home in Douglas County. Schmidt applied for a variance to allow him to build a detached garage. As planned, the garage would not meet the minimum setbacks from a municipal road's right-of-way and centerline. Schmidt's variance application indicated that he wanted to build the garage because: he intended to live on the property year-round; other neighboring structures encroached on the setbacks; he was "just re- questing to do what...everyone else has done"; and there was no other place to put the garage. Schmidt claimed that, given the steep slope of the property running down to an abuttiL'1g lake, a physical hardship ex- isted that warranted the variance. 5 129