Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2005

Home

Page 8 -- May 10, 2005 Petrush stated he maintained the second signpost because he intended the sign to be used by future tenants such as Finn. There was no evidence of actual abandonment, such as overt acts by Petrush, statements, or uses inconsistent with the nonconforming use. In this case, the signpost was maintained, not destroyed, which was evi- dence of intent to continue the nonconforming use. Therefore, the municipality did not meet its burden to show abandonment so as to overcome the owner's fight to continue the use. see also: Latrobe Speedway [nc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Unity Township, 720 A.2d 127 (1998). Fair Housing --Town allegedly fails to approve two- and three-bedroom development plan Under revised plan, affordable housing limited to one-bedroom and studio apartments Citation: Fait' Housing in Huntington Committee v. Town of Huntington, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 02-CV~2787 (DRH)(ARL)( 2005) NEW YORK (03/23/05) -- The town of Huntington amended its zoning laws to allow the construction of 1,375 new homes. None of these homes was an afford- able family housing unit. Soon thereafter, a developer allegedly presented the town with a plan for another nearby area that would have included two- and three-bedroom afford- able housing units. The town failed to vote on the proposal until it was revised. Under the revision, the only affordable units were one-bedroom and studio apartments. The town approved the proposal the next day. Fair Housing in Huntington Committee, a tocaI nonprofit, sued, arguing the town violated the Fair Housing Act by approving senior housing and studio/ one-bedroom housing, but not the two- and three-bedroom housing that would attract low-income minority families.' ' DECISION: Judgment in favor of town. The town did not violate the Fair Housing Act. The Act imposed liability on municipahties that erected obstacles to pro- posed housing. Here, the town did not pass any resolution that obstructed low-income housing for minorities. Rather, the town permitted the land to be used for senior citizens and for studio/one-bedroom apartments. There was no constitutional or statutory duty to provide Iow-income hous- ing, nor was there a constitutional guarantee of access to dwellings of a par- ticular quality. Ultimately, there was no constitutional requirement that the town include low-income minority housing in its plan. see also: Meyerv. HolIey,'537 U.S. 28D, 123 S. Ct. 824, 154 L.Ed. 2d 753 (2003). @ 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 128