Laserfiche WebLink
<br />April 10, 20081 Volume 21 NO.7 <br /> <br />zoning." The village zoning board of appeals (the board) upheld the <br />issuance of the revised zoning CO, as well as the issuance of a re- <br />lated building permit and a CO. <br />Village residents (the Residents) challenged the board's actions. <br />The lower court upheld the board'$ issuance of the zoning CO and <br />the issuance of the building permit and CO, and dismissed the Resi- <br />dents' challenge. The Residents appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />The court found that the use of the property for a marina and res- <br />taurant operation significantly pre-dated the enactment of the village <br />zoning ordinance requiring a special permit for waterfront district <br />marinas and restaurants. The court concluded that the marina and <br />restaurant uses were therefore pre-existing non-conforming uses. <br />The court rejected the Residents' argument that erection of the <br />tent over the outdoor dining area was a separate use, requiring a <br />special permit. The court found the village's zoning ordinance did <br />not in its definition of "restaurant use" distinguish between indoor <br />or outdoor food and beverage service and consumption. <br />The court also rejected the Residents' argument that erection of <br />the tent over the outdoor dining area was an expansion of a non- <br />conforming use. The court said that an increase in volume or inten- <br />sity of the same nonconforming use-the restaurant use-as had <br />occurred on the property for decades was not an expansion of that <br />nonconforming use. <br />The court also rejected the Residents' argument that interruption <br />of the outdoor service because of a lack of compliance with the re- <br />quirements of the New York State Liquor Authority was an aban- <br />donment of the restaurant use of the property. <br />The court concluded that the board's determinations were there- <br />fore rational, not arbitrary ~nd capricious, and were properly <br />upheld. <br /> <br />See also: Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v. Weise, 51 N. Y.2d 278, 434 <br />N.Y.S.2d 150,414 N.E.2d 651 (1980). <br /> <br />See also: Town of Clarkstr;;wn v. M.R.O. Pump & Tank, Inc., 32 <br />A.D.3d 925, 822 N. Y.S.2d 576 (2d Dep't 2006). <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />25 <br />