Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1999

Home

z.g. February 10, ~999- Page 7 ' If the board improperly classified Shortridge's activities as lumbering, they would not have been a lawful use under the old ordinance. He therefore would not have the right to continue his activities as a nonconforming use under the amended ordinance. The case had to be returned for the court to de~ide whether the board's ruling was valid. see also: Knowlton v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Virginia Inc., 260 &E. 2d 232 (1979). see also: Hallmark Personnel Agency Inc. v. Jones, 154 S.E. 2d 5 (1967). Occupancy -- City claims owner lost right to operate multifamily house Citation: EiEG. Associates v. City' of !thaca Board of Zoning Appeals, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Div., 3rd Dept., No. 82637 (1999) E.P.G. owned a three-story house in Ithaca, N.Y. The house was in a single- family district but had grandfathered rights to remain a two-family residence with a maximum occupancy of three unrelated adults in one unit and two unre- lated adults in the basement unit.' In 1995, the city charged E.P.G. with allowing occupancy over the legal limits and converting the property from a two-unit house into a "multiple resi- dence.'' The city code defined a multiple residence as a single-dwelling unit "occupied by four or more unrelated persons. The evidence showed E.P.G. allowed eight tenants to live in the house from August 1994 to August 1995, with the understanding that it was a "one-dwell- ing unit." In fact, the lease clearly stated E.P.G. rented the tenants "the whole house," as opposed to either of the two dwelling units. There was also proof the two units weren't separated into distinct apartments and that the basement wasn't used as a separate dwelling unit. An unlocked door separated the two units and allowed inside access between them, and although the basement had a kitchen, it didn;t have a working stove. E.P.G. pleaded guilty, and the city.fined the company $10,000. Later, the city building departmen~ notified E.P.G. it lost its legal noncon- forming status by exceeding the occupancy limits for more than one year and by renting the property as a multiple residence and not two units. Under the city code, a nonconforming use lost its legal status if it wasn't used as a non- conforming use for one year. E.P.G. appealed to the city zoning board, which upheld the building department's determination. E.P.G. appealed to court, and the court dismissed its appeal. E.P.G. appealed again. : DECISION: Affirmed. The trial court properly dismissed E.P.G.'s appeal. E.P.G. lost its right to maintain a two-dwelling building. Under the city code, a nonconforming use lost its status if it wasn't used as such for one year.