Laserfiche WebLink
<br />46 <br /> <br />July10, 20091 Volume 31 No.13 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />feasible, [we]re all rationally related to the broad environmental goals (--="\ <br />[of] the [O]rdinance." . I <br /> <br />See also: 515 Associates v. City of Newark, 132 N.J. 180, 623 A.2d <br />1366 (1993). <br /> <br />Vested RightsNariance-Landowner renovates <br />building in reliance on erroneously issued <br />building permit <br /> <br />After town revokes invalid permit, landowner claims a <br />vested right to use or entitlement to a variance <br /> <br />Citation: Westbury Laundromat, Inc. v. Mammina, 62 A.D.3d 888, 879 <br />N.Y.S.2d 188 (2d Dep't 2009) <br /> <br />NEW YORK. (OS/19/09)-Fermin Nunez owned a cOII111iercial build- <br />ing in the town. He operated a laundromat in the building until it was <br />destroyed by a fire. After the fire, Nunez sought to renovate the building <br />so that he could once again operate his laundromat. To that end, on No- <br />vember 13, 2006, he applied 10 the town for a building permit. <br />During the pendency of his application, the town amended the zoning <br />ordinance to prohibit laundromats in the. district where his building was <br />located (the "Amendment"). The Amendment became effective January <br />1, 2007. On January 18, 2007, the building inspector erroneously issued <br />Nunez a building permit for what was now-in light of the Amendment-a <br />nonconforming use. In reliance on that permit, Nunez completed the reno- <br />vations at a substantial cost. He then requested a certificate of occupancy. <br />The town's building department then revoked. the building permit on the <br />ground that it was contrary to the Town Code. Town Code ~ 70-209 pro- <br />vided that "[n]o building which has been damaged by fire ... shall be re- <br />paired, rebuilt or used except in conformity with the provisions" of the <br />zoning ordinance. <br />Nunez then applied for a use variance. The town's Board of Zoning <br />Appeals (the "BZA") denied the variance. <br />Nunez then filed a legal action. He asked the court to: (1) declare that <br />he had a vested right to maintain a laundromat on his premises; or (2) al- <br />ternatively, find the BZA should have granted him the requested variance. <br />The supreme court concluded that Nunez had a vested right to main- <br />tain the laundromat. It reinstated the building permit. <br />The town and BZA appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> <br />The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New <br />York, first held that Nunez did not acquire a vested right to maintain a <br />. . <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />"\ <br /> <br />(~) <br /> <br />) <br />.~ <br />