All of the deeds for the lots in the 5100 block of Elm Street contained a restrictive covenant requiring that all houses built on the lots be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the sidewalk. Local zoning regulations required that all homes in the area of the 5100 block of Elm Street be set back a minimum of 35 feet from the sidewalk. Dampier purchased a lot on the 5100 block of Elm Street on which it would be possible to build a home with a 50-foot setback. However, the lot was of an unusual shape, and Dampier applied to the city zoning commission asking for a variance allowing him to build a house set back 30 feet from the sidewalk. In his petition, Dampier cited the unusual shape of the lot and asserted that it would cause hardship for him to build in compliance with the 35-foot setback required by the zoning regulations. The zoning commission granted Dampier the variance. Nora, whose home was located at 5130 Elm Street, noticed surveyors putting up ropes 30 feet from the sidewalk on Dampier's lot, and she discovered that Dampier planned to build a home with only a 30 -foot setback. Nora seeks to enforce the restrictive covenant and brings suit to enjoin Dampier from building a residence with a setback of less than 50 feet. Who will prevail?
A. Dampier, because zoning regulations take precedence over restrictive covenants as a matter of public policy.
B. Dampier, because equity will not impose a hardship.
C. Nora, because Dampier will be unjustly enriched if he is permitted to build a 30 foot setback.
D. Nora, because a zoning variance does not affect the enforcement of a restrictive covenant.
Choose A, B, C or D as your solution.
D