Opinion ID: 1292234
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Balough's Estoppel Claims

Text: Balough argues that the superior court erred when it refused to consider her estoppel claim as a part of her administrative appeal and that the court compounded its error by dismissing [her] estoppel claim from the direct-civil-action aspect of the case. Balough further asserts that the superior court created a situation where, upon bifurcating the case[,] certain components of the Complaint [were] made to vanish into thin air. Balough's estoppel claim is based on her assertion that she detrimentally relied on FNSB's representations: Balough clearly expended substantial sums and time in operating the property for several years as a junkyard, an authorized use under the prior zoning. Moreover, during 1993, Balough made yet further expenditures at the request and in reliance on FNSB's representations that the fencing should be made more substantial. When the unprecedented early and heavy snowfall occurred late that summer and prevented completion of the fencing until the following spring, Balough was informed by the FNSB's representative, Fred Rohn, that it would be acceptable for her to construct temporary fencing to comply with the ordinance and then complete the fencing in the Spring of 1992, thus remaining in compliance with the code all the while. Balough, in good faith, relied on FNSB's representations. The best that can be said for Balough's estoppel claim is that she was told she could erect temporary fencing until spring, when she could complete permanent fencing. This seasonal reprieve was cut short by the successful rezoning effort, thereby depriving Balough of the opportunity to cure she had been promised. Since this argument is the essence of Balough's due process claim which we have determined in Balough's favor, Balough's estoppel claims are subsumed within the due process claim. We need not separately address the estoppel claims, since any error in failing to consider them is harmless.