Court Opinion

ID: 9627425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:43:27.134473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:49.092169
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. The majority opinion misper-ceives some of the facts and fails to give proper deference to certain findings of fact made by the district court and the Board of Adjustment, contrary to our rules of appellate review. In so doing, the majority opinion erroneously destroys one of the bases for the district court’s judgment.
The district court found that the building in question had been erected prior to 1927, the year of enactment of the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance. The city conceded that the building was a nonconforming use, not affected by the passage of the zoning ordinance. The court further found that since at least April 21, 1942, it had been occupied and used as a dwelling by a large number of tenants. Other significant findings of fact, which the majority opinion either does not mention or dismisses as unimportant, are:
17. City building inspectors went to the site at least five times during the course of construction. The structure was observable to the inspectors, and one of the city inspectors, Marvin Peguillan, observed the building and inquired about it but none of the inspectors followed through with removing the building from use or availability for use as a dwelling.
18. The City issued certificates of occupancy for the four duplexes. There was no evidence or record of any communicated conditions or stipulations restricting or concerning the use or removal of the structure as a single family dwelling.
19. Although the application made no reference to the single family dwelling, *1039the inclusion of the building on the plot plan was sufficient disclosure by the applicant to place the City on reasonable notice to make further inquiry about the existence and use of the building.
It is stated in the majority opinion that “the application, plot plan and building plans for the duplexes submitted to the city and relied on in granting the requisite building permit affirmatively stated that the land was vacant and without a dwelling on it.” That statement is inaccurate in many particulars:
(1) The application for the building permit was signed by one Stan R. Conrad, who was neither the contractor nor the owner. One witness surmised that he may have been a subcontractor. No evidence was presented that he in any way had authority to make statements or representations on behalf of the owner. It is not reasonable to conclude agency under the facts of this case, as the majority asserts. The application contained a space for “Previous Use of Land or Structure.” The word “vacant” was filled in. Another question asked for the number of dwelling units then on the lot. The answer given was “none.” These two questions are ambiguous since they do not define what is the “land” or the “lot.” If they mean the land or lot on which the duplexes were to be built, it was true that they were vacant, since no other structures or buildings had to be torn down to accommodate them.
(2) At any rate, any error on the part of Conrad in answering those questions was rendered harmless by the accompanying plot plan which showed an existing building on the plot. It did not show that it was vacant as the majority opinion erroneously states. This one fact alone put the city on notice of the existence of the old building, and the district court so found in Finding #19.
(3) The building plans filed by the owner with the city could not be found by the city at the time of the district court hearing. Finding # 16. They were not in evidence. Thus there was no evidence that the plans showed the land to be vacant. The majority opinion again errs in stating that the plans showed the land to be vacant. The Board of Adjustment had the plans before it and found that they did show an existing building on the lot.
As appears in Finding # 17 quoted above, city building inspectors went to the site at least five times during the course of construction. A witness from the city testified that usually there are ten inspections during construction by at least four different inspectors. One inspector mentioned the existence of the building to his supervisor, but the latter did not see fit to inquire about it. It is immaterial that they may have assumed it was vacant. The majority opinion states that “no one was living in it at the time.” There was no evidence to that effect, and neither the Board of Adjustment nor the district court so found, but found it had been occupied and used by tenants since 1942. The closest neighbor, Nora Cottle, testified before the Board of Adjustment, and the Board found that the building was occupied by tenants when the duplexes were built. She also testified that it had always been lived in and had never been used as a garage or storage shed. One of the owners, Gary Xanthos, testified that he resided in the old house from March to July, 1975, and the duplexes were then completed. The majority mentions that the house was vacant for two to six months after Xanthos moved out in July, but by then the duplexes had been completed, although the city did not make its final inspection until September 30. Thus it is clear that when the first four inspections were made, the house was not vacant. No one from the city testified that it was vacant — only that they assumed it was vacant. It is highly significant that the Board of Adjustment, although refusing to grant the plaintiff a variance, found, as did the district judge, that “the building inspector should have noted the problem when inspecting the property.” To hold, as does the majority opinion, that the city could rely exclusively upon the plaintiffs statements in his application for a building permit as to the condition of the property and *1040completely ignore what it saw during the five inspections, is wholly unwarranted in view of the district court’s Findings # 17 and # 19, which found to the contrary. Furthermore, it was uncontroverted that the city furnished and collected monthly charges for water and sewer service to the old building. The city had also approved the furnishing of electrical service to the building by an electric utility. When the duplexes were completed, a certificate of occupancy was given by the city without condition or restriction. For three years thereafter the city registered no complaint against the building.
Based on those facts, the district judge concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a variance to maintain the structure under U.C.A., 1953, § 10-9-12(3) because there were special circumstances attached to the property which did not generally apply to other properties in the same district, including but not limited to: (a) age and occupancy of the dwelling; (b) the approval by the city of the development of the duplexes, and the issuances of certificates of occupancy for them; and (c) the failure of the city to inform James Xanthos that the dwelling would not comply with the zoning ordinances, thereby denying him the opportunity to redesign the layout for the duplexes in such a way as to not require the demolition of the dwelling.
The majority opinion urges that we accord proper deference to the findings and conclusions of the Board of Adjustment, but fails to do that very thing. The majority completely ignores one of the Board’s findings of fact (which was also made by the district court) that the “building inspectors should have noted the problem.” Thus, unquestionably the city is charged with knowledge of what an inspection of the old building would have revealed. Zoning ordinances contain many technical requirements not generally known to the public, including the minimum size of front, side and rear yards. People properly rely on a city’s representation when a building permit is issued and when inspections are made during construction that the structure when completed will not be in violation of the zoning ordinance. Certainly, in a case such as the instant case, where a plot plan and building plans showing an existing building, are presented to the city and then later, five times, its inspectors are on the premises, it is not expecting too much to require that the city then and there raise any objection it may have to any violation of its own zoning or building ordinances. The majority fails to recognize these facts. It erroneously and exclusively relies upon an ambiguous application not made out or signed by the owner. Furthermore, Albert Blair, Director of the Department of Building and Housing Services for the city, testified before the Board of Adjustment that the building inspector “usually does not look at the permit; he refers to the plot plan.” The plot plan clearly showed the existing building that the inspectors noted when they made their five visits to the property. The trial court properly found that the failure of the city to inform the plaintiff’s father that the old dwelling would not comply with zoning ordinances robbed him of the opportunity to redesign the layout so as to conform.
This Court has in at least two cases recognized that there are circumstances where it would be inequitable to enforce a zoning ordinance. Salt Lake County v. Kartchner, Utah, 552 P.2d 136 (1976); Wood v. North Salt Lake, 15 Utah 2d 245, 390 P.2d 858 (1964). See also Utah County v. Baxter, Utah, 635 P.2d 61 (1981). More closely in point are cases from other jurisdictions where under facts similar to the instant case the enforcement of a zoning ordinance was refused by courts when the municipal authority had acted or failed to act to the detriment of a property owner who relied upon such authority. For example, in City Service Oil Company v. City of Des Plaines, 21 Ill.2d 157, 171 N.E.2d 605 (1961), a city was estopped from preventing erection of a service station in violation of its zoning ordinance when the property owner had expended large sums for the installation of pumps and tanks in reliance upon a building permit that had been erroneously issued, and in which city *1041officials had acquiesced for several months. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that where the owner’s actions are induced by the conduct of municipal officers, and where in the absence of an estoppel, he would suffer a substantial loss and the “municipality would be permitted to stultify itself by retracting what its agents had done,” an estoppel would be raised by the court. See also the later Illinois case of City of Evanston v. Robbins, 117 Ill.App.2d 278, 254 N.E.2d 536 (1969), holding that in zoning cases the doctrine of estop-pel may be applied where the record suggests that the detriment to the public is negligible and there is no risk to public health or safety.
Other cases invoking estoppel where building permits had been issued and construction had been commenced or completed include Tankersley Brothers Industries, Inc. v. City of Fayetteville, 227 Ark. 130, 296 S.W.2d 412 (1956); Strong v. County of Santa Cruz, 15 Cal.3d 720, 125 Cal.Rptr. 896, 543 P.2d 264 (1975); Township of Haverford v. Spica, 16 Pa.Cmwlth. 326, 328 A.2d 878 (1974). In the latter case, the court quoted with approval at 882 the following from In re Heidorn, 412 Pa. 570, 195 A.2d 349 (1963):
While courts are reluctant, and should be, to impose the sanction of laches on governmental divisions, equity cannot close its eyes to the sloth, indifference or official neglect of a municipal body anymore than it can to the neglect of an individual where such neglect harms an innocent person.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court. The undisputed evidence and the findings of fact made by the Board of Adjustment and the trial court require the imposition of an estoppel against the city in enforcing its ordinance against this property owner. The misleading acts and inaction of the city, together with the reliance thereon by the owner, are clear. There was no prevarication or equivocation here by the owner as the majority suggests. The city does not contend that any problem of public health or safety will be encountered if a variance is granted. I am in full accord with the statement made by the court in New-Mark Builders, Inc. v. City of Aurora, 90 Ill.App.2d 98, 233 N.E.2d 44 (1967), cited in City of Evanston v. Robbins, supra, that “[mjunicipal corporations, as well as private corporations and individuals, are bound by the principles of fair dealing.”