Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />expand; but nonconforming structures had no protected right to <br />expand in violation of applicable regulations. <br />While the club also argued that its proposed enclosure would <br />become part of the existing tennis courts, the appeals court rejected <br />this argument, noting that: "[i]ts proposed enclosure will be a new <br />structure completely different than the tennis courts. The club pro- <br />posed to construct a new building that would be supported by new <br />concrete footers and would be of a completely different type than <br />the tennis courts. The club, under its proposal, would even have to <br />move the net posts and the lines on the courts in order to accom- <br />modate the new building. <br />A nonconforming use or structure WaS one that was permitted <br />before a zoning ordinance went into affect that prohibited the ex- <br />isting use or structure. Generally, zoning ordinances establishing <br />nonconforming uses and structures did so with the objective of <br />eventually eliminating the nonconformity. Here, allowing the club <br />to construct a new nonconforming structure would run counter <br />to this objective. The appeals court found that the lower court <br />had not erred when it found in the borough's favor, and the case <br />was dismissed. <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />128 <br /> <br />. ---.. <br />\. <br /> <br />) <br />