Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> 4) on expenditures unique to the proposed project <br /> • 5) resulting in a great inequity to the developer. <br /> 294 N.W.2d at 292. <br /> In this case, Respondent cannot claim that he relied on the plat sufficiently to <br /> • <br /> his detriment to invoke the doctrine of estoppel. His own action in combining the <br /> lots compromised the plat and invalidated any right he may have had in developing <br /> • the smaller lots under the new, more restrictive zoning regulation. Additionally, he <br /> incurred virtually no expense to develop the property as six lots. He admits that he <br /> has done nothing in preparation for development of the land. Even so, the change <br /> • <br /> in zoning did not deprive Respondent of the total value of his land. He has <br /> developed one residence on it and it may be subdivided to create one more lot <br /> • under the current zoning regulations. <br /> 4. Notice <br /> Before the Respondent purchased the property, the zoning of that <br /> • <br /> area had changed from a one-acre minimum residential lot size to a five-acre <br /> minimum lot size. In Howard v. City of Roseville, 70 N.W.2d 404 (Minn. 1955), the <br /> • Minnesota Supreme Court denied relief to a property owner who claimed that he <br /> would sustain a financial loss due to zoning restrictions. The Court noted that "at <br /> the time he acquired the property, the ordinance was in effect, and he is presumed <br />• <br /> to have purchased it with full knowledge of the manner in which it was zoned by the <br /> ordinance. 70 N.W.2d at 408. <br />• Similarly, Respondent acquired this property after the change in zoning. <br /> Nonetheless, he combined the lots. Whether he fully understood the implications of <br />• 10 <br /> App. Page 13 of 35 <br />