My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2012
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:10:27 AM
Creation date
1/27/2012 9:16:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
02/02/2012
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
260
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
October 10, 2011 1 Volume 5 [ No. 19 Zoning Bulletin <br />Nonconforming Use — Motocross Operator <br />Fails to Apply for Grandfathered, Prior <br />Nonconforming Use Status under Zoning Law <br />Operator later asks court to declare it with such status <br />Citation: Town of Plattekill v. Ace Motocross, Inc., 87 A.D.3d 788, <br />928 N. Y..S.2d 151 (3d Dep't 2011) <br />NEW YORK This case addressed the issue of whether an oper- <br />ator of a nonconforming use, who had failed to apply to the zon- <br />ing commission for nonconforming use authorization following an <br />amendment to the municipal code that eliminated the nonconform- <br />ing use but allowed for an "amortization period" of operation, could <br />subsequently seek nonconforming use status in court. <br />The Background/Facts: Ace Motocross, Inc. ( "Ace ") operated <br />a commercial motocross racetrack in the Town of Plattekill (the <br />"Town"). In 2005, the Town enacted Chapter 110 of its Munici- <br />pal Code. Part of that chapter prohibited the use of land for the op- <br />eration of off -road motorized vehicles. The new law did include a <br />"grandfather" provision, which allowed property owners who per- <br />mitted such operations on their land to apply to the Town's Zoning <br />Board of Appeals (the "ZBA ") within 90 days of the law's enact- <br />ment for a determination that such use was a preexisting noncon- <br />forming use prior to February 18, 1987. If so, the owner could re- <br />ceive authorization to continue the nonconforming operations for <br />up to 10 years. <br />Ace, who claimed that its racetrack had been in operation since <br />before 1987, did not apply to the ZBA for "grandfathered" prior <br />nonconforming use status. <br />In early 2006, the Town's Code Enforcement Officer issued cita- <br />tions to Ace for its use of the property for commercial motocross rac- <br />ing in violation of the zoning law. When Ace did not cease its ac- <br />tivities, the Town filed an action in court. The Town asked the court <br />to permanently enjoin Ace from operating the racetrack. The Town <br />asked the court to find that there were no material issues of fact in <br />dispute and to decide the matter in its favor on the law alone. <br />The court granted the town's motion for summary judgment. The <br />court permanently enjoined Ace from operating a commercial moto- <br />cross track in violation of the zoning law. <br />Ace appealed. It asked the court to declare its racetrack a grandfa- <br />thered, prior nonconforming use. <br />10 © 201 1 Thomson Reuters <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.