Laserfiche WebLink
May 1995. Page3 <br /> <br /> stated the ~earing could be adjourned, and warned that failure, to appear <br /> could resul! in the permit's termination. <br /> The toFn board did not have authority to issue the 1968 conditional, use <br /> permit 0nly local boards of zoning appeals could issue exceptions to <br /> zoning clas~ifications. However, t..he town s violatio, n of state law did not <br /> violate the ~lub's federal constitutional rights. The club should have sued in <br /> state court,inot federal court. <br /> Mempt{is Light, Gas &.Water Division v. Craft, 43'6 U.S. I (1978). <br /> <br /> Nonconforming Use -- NeighbOr Complains About Use of Former <br /> Church aslDesigner's Studio <br /> Kenne~.rv v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of. North salem, <br /> 613 N.[S. 2d 264 (New York) 1994 <br /> Roman~ki's property in North Salem, N.Y.., was previously used as a <br />church and!parish house. Romanski lived in the parish house and used the <br />church as ~ studio for his interior decgrating business. '. - . <br /> When 1~. omanski bought the property in 1979, he tried to. get a certificate <br />of occupani:y from,the town's building inspector. The building inspector <br />gave him ailetter saying he did not need a ce.rtificate..because the property <br />was "pre-e: :isting to any requirement of a Certificate Of Occupancy." The <br />letter also aid the property complied with the then-applicable 1965 zoning <br />ordinance, >ecause the parish house was a legal residence and the church <br />was a legal accessory structure. When Kennedy, a neighbor, complained, the <br />building ingpector told her Romanski's use of the parish and church was <br />lawful. <br /> When the zoning ordinance changed-in 1987, it prohibited Romanski's <br />use. In 1989, after a new building inspector took office, Kennedy filed <br />another co~nplaint. The building inspector found Romanski's use was illegal <br />because he!did not have a certificate of occupancY, and ordered him to get. <br />one. <br /> Roman~ki appealed. The town.Zoning Board of Appeals invalidated the <br />order, find~g Romanski's use of the property to be a lawful nonconforming <br />use under the town's 1965 zoning laws. <br /> £ <br /> Kennedy sued, asking for a review of the board's finding. The court <br />vacated th~ decision, and the board appealed. <br />DECISION: Reversed, board's finding reinstated. <br /> The tri~l court was wrong to overturn the board's decision. Even if the <br />1965 zoning ordinance required a certificate of occupancy, Romanski's <br />failure to g~t one did not make his use unlawful. In 1979, the inspector found <br />Romanski ~omplied with the 1965 zoning laws. The new inspector could not, <br />10 years la!er, find the same use to be a violation. <br /> Matte~ ~f Rubin v. Wallace, 404 N.Y.S. 2d 733. <br /> Village !Green Condominium Corp v. Nardecchia, 445 N. YS. 2d 494. <br /> <br />131 <br /> <br /> <br />