or disapproval of development plans. ¶ 53. Allowing the circuit court to balance the equities when an injunction is requested under Wis. Stat. § 59.69(11) will not render "meaningless the entire line of case law regarding the standard of unnecessary hardship which must be met in order for a variance applicant to be properly granted a variance." State's brief at 7. Instead, the circuit court, sitting in equity, should weigh heavily the factors considered by boards of adjustment in determining unnecessary hardship, see Wis. Stat. § 59.694(7)(c), as well as traditional equitable considerations. Equitable defenses, such as laches, estoppel, or unclean hands should also be weighed in appropriate cases. See, e.g., Ramaker v. Cities Service Oil Co., 27 Wis. 2d 143, 153, 133 N.W.2d 789 (1965) (<HOLDING>). See, also, Hargreaves v. Skrbina, 662 P.2d
holding  he who seeks equity must do equity  recognizing that a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action holding a shareholders derivative action even where the only relief allowed is a recovery of damages is nevertheless a suit in equity and not an action at law recognizing that there may be situations where laches or estoppel would justify a court of equity in denying an injunction at the suit of private parties recognizing that an injunction cannot bind parties who are not before this court