upon the existing zoning ordinance and the assurances of the city officials, entitles it to issuance of the permit”). In Cos Corp., the Supreme Court of Illinois explained the rationale behind its recognition of the doctrine of zoning estoppel: Where an individual or corporation expends substantial sums relying on the then existing zoning and zoning ordinances and proceeds to seek a permit in compliance with them, it would be a grave injustice to allow municipal officials to hold up action on issuance of a building permit until an amendatory ordinance could be passed changing the standards to be met so that a permit formerly lawful would now not be issued due to an abrupt change in the law. Cos Corp., 190 N.E.2d at 368. 12 . See Even v. City of Parker, 597 N.W.2d 670, 675 (S.D.1999) (<HOLDING>). 13 . See Fox v. Park City, 200 P.3d 182, 191
holding the applicant must show social visibility and particularity holding that asylum may be denied to an applicant who has otherwise demonstrated a wellfounded fear of future persecution if the evidence shows that internal relocation is a reasonable option in all the circumstances holding that to establish asylum eligibility based on future persecution an applicant must show that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable holding that the applicant failed to satisfy the statute because the applicant did not have an ownership right or access right to the reservoir site holding based on equitable estoppel principles that a municipality may not through its agents affirmatively create an objectively reasonable impression in an applicant that he has fully complied with all zoning requirements and then proceed to withdraw permission after the applicant has taken steps towards construction which result in a substantial detriment to the applicant