Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

Z.B. March 15, 1996- Page 3 that the water and sewer lines were adequate. The town manager's statement that the town did not accept the water and sewer for maintenance was not part of the board's evidence -- the manager made the statement after the hearing was closed. Because the board did not state on which grounds it based its decision, the court could not decide whether it was valid. Shoney's v. Board of Adjustment for City of Asheville, 458 S.E.2d 510 (1995). Refini~g Co. v. ]3oard of Aldermen, 209 S.E. 2d 447 (1974). Zoning Violation -- Taxpayer Sues to Stop Violation After Demanding That Town Take Action Eggert v. LeFever, 635 N.Y.&2d 857 (New York) 2995 LeFever owned land in a residential-agricultural district of the town of Westfield, N.Y. He operated a construction business on the land and stored equipment there, although that use was not allowed in that district. Eggert sent the town a written demand to enforce the ordinance, saying LeFever was violating it. According to LeFever, the town then started to amend the ordinance to allow building/construction contractor businesses as speci- ally permitted uses in the district. Eggert said the town did nothing in response to his request. Eggert sued LeFever. Among other things, he claimed LeFever violated the ordinance. Eggert claimed because the town did nothing to enforce the ordinance, a town law gave him the right to sue -- as a taxpayer -- to stop LeFever from continuing the violation. He asked the court for an initial order stopping LeFever from storing or repairing equipment on the property. The court denied Eggert's request. It found LeFever did violate the ordi- nance by storing and repairing equipment on the land, but Eggert could not sue to enforce it because the town took steps to amend the ordinance. The court dismissed Eggert's claim for a court order. Eggert appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The lower court improperly dismissed Eggert's claim for an order pre- venting LeFever from violating the ordinance. Its decision was reversed, and the order Eggert requested was granted. The town's attempt to amend the ordinance was not a reasonable way to enforce it. Because the town did not "institute [an] appropriate action or pro- ceeding'' to enforce the ordinance, town law gave Eggert the right to sue as a taxpayer. The evidence showed LeFever violated the ordinance, so the lower court should have granted Eggert's requested order. E~virogas v. Tow~ of Westfield, 442 N.Y.S. 2d 290. City of New York v. Bily~ Realty Corfu., 499 N.Y.S. 2d toll.