attributable to an erroneously issued building permit or C of O. Garrou v. Teaneck Tryon Co., 11 NJ. 294, 94 A.2d 332, 335 (1953); see generally 4 Rathkopf § 65:32 ("Laches and estoppel involving adjoining owners”). The availability of private relief when the government is estopped from revoking a permit or a C of O, or from otherwise enforcing the zoning laws, is a question our court has yet to resolve or examine in detail. See Rafferty v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 583 A.2d 169, 176 (D.C. 1990) ("This court has never determined whether the District’s erroneous issuance of a permit may operate to estop other interested persons from enforcing their rights under the zoning laws.”); Saah v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 433 A.2d 1114, 1117 n. 3 (D.C.1981) (<HOLDING>); Goto v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning
holding bza estopped from denying a variance where inter alia injury to the public would be minimal but not reaching the question of the effect of the estoppel on a claim made by a neighboring landowner holding that estoppel was a question of fact holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact holding that an insurer will not be estopped from denying coverage merely because the underlying case proceeds to judgment before the declaratory judgment action is resolved holding that objection was called for by the party to be estopped since an  estoppel may arise as effectually from silence where it is a duty to speak as from words spoken 