Laserfiche WebLink
tion <br />constructed on a City right-of-way. Placing a residence on Parcel <br />A would not remove this ordinance violation. The second ground <br />for ordering removal, construction of the dock without a required <br />permit, could -be solved by obtaining the permit. In stating the <br />third ground for ordering removal, that a principal structure be <br />on the property before an accessory structure be constructed, no <br />reference is made to Parcel A or to Parcel B. Rather Mr. Jacobs <br />specifically states "since you have no principal structure on your <br />existing lot, or the lot your (sic) feel is yours, the dock is not <br />a legal structure". That sentence does not specify which lot lacks <br />a principal structure. Rather it states the Zoning Code require­ <br />ment for a principal structure on the lot before dock can be <br />constructed. <br />Mr, Jacob's letter offers no grounds for reliance. Two <br />of the ordinance violations specified in the letter still pertain <br />to Lakeville's proposal to place a dock on Parcel B. <br />3. Legal Basis Of The Reliance Claim. <br />Lakeville has presented no authority to substantiate its <br />claim that a dock should be permitted on Parcel B because of <br />expectation and reliance. Nor has there been any showing of <br />injury or damage. <br />Recovery can be had in Minnesota for damages resulting from <br />fraudulent misrepresentation. To maintain such a claim a plaintiff <br />must show a fraudulent misrepresentation pertaining to a past or <br />present fact, acknowledgment by the person making the representation <br />of its falsity or disregard of its truth, an intention that the <br />other person act on it, that the other person being reasonably <br />-11-