My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3.0. PCSR 03-08-2005
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2000-2005
>
2005
>
03/08/2005
>
3.0. PCSR 03-08-2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2013 10:54:39 AM
Creation date
3/4/2005 3:16:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCSR
date
3/8/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />result in a "manifest injustice" that warrants deviation from the <br /> <br />usual rule of applying the law as amended. <br /> <br />Estoppel. Related to the concept of vested rights is the theory that <br /> <br />government can be estopped from enforcing its building and <br /> <br />zoning ordinances in certain circumstances. The central concept to <br /> <br /> <br />the doctrine of equitable estoppel is inducement. The claim in <br /> <br /> <br />these cases is that the zoning authority should be estopped from <br /> <br /> <br />preventing a developer or landowner from proceeding with an <br /> <br />activity that the zoning authority induced, for instance, by issuing a <br /> <br />building permit. The general rule is that issuance of a building <br /> <br />permit under a zoning ordinance falls within the governmental <br /> <br />rather than the proprietary functions of a municipality, and that <br /> <br />estoppel will not lay against a municipality for its actions <br /> <br /> <br />performed in a governmental capacity. Kiges v. City of St. Paul, <br /> <br />240 Minn. 522, 62N.W.2d 363 (1953); Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. <br /> <br /> <br />v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604 (Minn., 1980); Ridgewood <br /> <br /> <br />Development Co. v. State, 294 N.W.2d 288 (Minn., 1980); Dege v. <br /> <br /> <br />City of Maplewood, 416 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. App., 1987). <br /> <br /> <br />However, in certain circumstances a vested right may be <br /> <br /> <br />established under an invalid building permit. A recovery under <br /> <br /> <br />this theory requires that the plaintiff first show wrongful conduct <br /> <br /> <br />by the City and demonstrate that expenditures made are unique to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.