Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004

Home

May 10, 2004 -- Page 7 animals on the property was a nonconforming use that stayed in effect. A non- conforming use was established when a parcel of property continued to be used for a formerly proper purpose after it had been rezoned to make the use improper. Stucki merely maintained the status quo until she received township ap- proval and was able to implement her permits. The continuation of the use only needed to be of substantially the same size and nature as the use when a valid zoning ordinance was passed. Ultimately, there was no justification for the neighbor's argument that Stucki's applications eliminated her legal nonconforming use rights or caused her to relinquish her claim of nonconforming status. see also: Krohn v, Saginaw, 437 iV. W. 2d 260 (1989). see also: Detroit/Wayne County Stadium Az~thority v. 7631 Lewiston Inc., 60! N. W. 2d 879 (1999). Nonconforming Use -- Neighbors claim use abandoned Previous owner had been under court order not to use property Citation: Savetsky v. Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 2nd Dept., No. 2002-09366 (2004) NEW YORK (03/29/04) -- 125 Yanks Inc. applied for an area variance to develop a piece of property in the town of Southampton. The property had several buildings on it and constituted a nonconforming multifamily use. The previous owner of the property had let the buildings/'all into disrepair. An injunction had then been issued prohibiting the use or occupancy of the property until the owner complied with the apphcable town, building, and fire codes. The previous owner took no action. It later sold the property to Yanks. Yanks wanted to use its requested area variance to increase the noncon- forming use. After a hearing, the board granted' its application. Neighboring property owners sued the board, arguing the prior property owners had voluntarily discontinued the nonconforming use for a period of more than 12 months. Under the local code, any such discontinuance ended the nonconforming use. The court ruled in favor of the neighboring property owners. The board appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The board's decision was neither illegal, arbitrary, nor an abuse of discre- tion. Thus, it should not have been overturned. The determination of a zoning board regarding the continuation of a pre- existing nonconforming use had to be sustained if it was rational and sup- ported by substantial evidence. 2004 Quinlan Publishing Group. ,Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information ¢iease call (617) 542-004-8. 85