Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/1999

Home

Page 4 -- May 25, 1999 Z.B. · . I board to condition its approval on the owners' relocation of the house far- ther from the reservoir. Citation: Matter of Geiben v. Town of Pomfret Zoning Board of Appeals, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Div., 4th Dept., No. 98-8082 (1999). see also: Matter of Pioneer-Evans Co. v. Garvin, 595 N.Y..S. 2d 586. see also: BanOs v. Colborn, 317N. Y.S. 2d 450. Contempt- Court finds owners in contempt for violating enforcement action order PENNSYLVANIA (4/13/99) -- The Steckmans wanted to buy property in the borough of Beaver. They planned to operate a retail grave marker business. The property was in a commercial professional district, which allowed business offices, but not retail uses. The Steckmans applied for a building per- mit, and began making repairs after the borough issued the permit. Two months later the borough's zoning officer revoked the Steckmans' permit, claiming it had been issued in error. The Steckmans didn't appeal the notice and continued to occupy"the premises. The Steckmans manufactured the grave markers at a facility in another city. The borough brought an enforcemen~ action against the Steckmans, asking the court to prohibit them from violating the borough's zoning ordinance. The Steckmans claimed they had a vested right to operate their business because the borough had issued them a building permit. The court found the Steckmans couldn't rely on their building permit be- muse they never appealed the permit's revocation to the zoning board. The court ordered the Steckmans not to sell grave markers on their property. An appeals court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the failure to appeal the revocation of a building permit barred any claim of a vested right to a permit. According to the Steckmans, they met with borough zoning officials after the trial to discuss what business they could conduct in compliance with the zoning ordinance and the court orders. They said they described their opera- tions to the officials and said the officials replied that only their receiving of payments constituted sales activity. The Steckmans applied for another zoning permit, stating they would display markers only in the rear of the lot and in catalogs. They said any sales or orders would be handled at their other location. The borough asked the trial court to hold the Steckmans in contempt for violating the court's order prohibiting them from operating their business. The borough claimed the Steckmans showed a lack of good faith by "selling" grave markers on the premises. The Steckmans supposedly had customers sign sales contracts and select markers from samples on the premises. According to the borough, the only thing the Steckmans did differently after the court order was to stop accepting initial payments on the premises. The Steckmans claimed they used the property as a business office for record keeping and accounting purposes and said the zoning officials had told