Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2013 I Volume 7 1 Issue 8 not demonstrate an injury distinct from the general public in the area" and therefore were insufficient to confer standing. Thus, having failed to establish that any of its members had standing to maintain the proceeding, CWA also lacked standing. See also: Finger Lakes Zero Waste Coalition, Inc. v. Martens, 95 A.D.3d 1420, 944 N.Y.S.2d 336 (3d Dep't 2012). See also: New York State Ass'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Novello, 2 N.Y.3d 207, 778 N. Y.S.2d 123, 810 N.E.2d 405 (2004). See also: Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 570 N.Y..S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034, 21 Envtl. L. Rep. 21413 (1991). onconforming Use —In renovating water -damaged nonconforming use, property owner exceeds parameters of zoning permit Borough issues a "stop work" order, saying total destruction of the structure terminated the nonconforming use Citation: Motley v. Borough of Seaside Park Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 2013 WL 776544 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2013) NEW JERSEY (03/04/13)—This case addressed the issue of whether a property owner's removal of every part of a nonconforming structure, except the foundation and footings, effected a total destruction of property, thus terminating the nonconforming use and the owner's right to continue that use. The Background/Facts: Daniel Motley ("Motley") owned property (the "Property") in the Borough of Seaside Park (the "Borough"). The Property was in an R-3 zone, which was restricted to single-family uses. Motley's prop- erty was a preexisting nonconforming use because it contained two structures, a rear building -which Motley's brother occupied —and a front building (the "Building") —which Motley occupied. The two structures were erected in 1931, long before the zone restrictions were put into effect in 1972. In 2006, pipes in the Building's hot water system burst and caused signifi- cant water damage. Motley decided to pursue renovations of the Building. In 2009, he applied to the Borough's Zoning Board of Adjustment (the "Board") for a zoning permit for "repair [and] renovation of [the] existing [Building]." The Borough's zoning officer (the "ZO") approved Motley's permit application. The approval noted that there was to be "[n]o expansion of [the Building's] dimensions." After Motley began renovations, it became clear that the Building was in "[m]uch worse condition than had been anticipated." Eventually, a Borough building inspector determined that the entire structure needed to be removed. © 2013 Thomson Reuters 9