Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2006

Home

Page 2 --June 10, 2006 Stop-Work Order -- Landowner claims boathouse now 'houseboat' Zoning board requests legal sanctions over new allegation Citation: Korbel v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Horicon, Supreme Court of New Yorlq App. Div., 3rd Department, No. 97927 (2006) NEW YORK (04/13/06) -- Korbel was ~anted the right to construct a boat- house on his Schroon Lake property in the town of Horicon. However, the town zoning enforcement officer issued a stop-work order in July 2003 on discover- ing that the boathouse's dimensions exceeded those that the or/ginal applica- tion stated, The officer also discovered that an unauthorized dock was added and that the proposed location was changed unilaterally. Ultimately, the Zoning'Board of Appeals of the Town of Hodcon upheld the officer's order, Korbel sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. The trial court directed Korbel to comply with town zoning regulations or remove the structure, but he did neithen Korbel appealed, arguing that he decided to mm the boathouse into a "houseboat." He claimed that -- because the structure was now a houseboat on a federal navigable waterway -- the board lacked jurisdiction over it, The board asked the court to find in its favor without a trial and requested that the court impose sanctions. DECISION: A ~rmed, with sa~ctious. The boathouse was not a "houseboat," and Korbel was subject to sanctions. While the record established that Korbel had acquired a vessel name and hull identification number, affidavits from two U.S. Coast Guard employees disputed Korbel's claim that the Coast Guard certified the structure as a houseboat. More importantly -- even if Korbel could have convinced the Coast Guard to cerdfy su'ucture -- such a conversion would not have impacted the trial court's order. Sanctions were appropriate because Korbel asserted material factual state- merits that were false. For example, Korbel stated in his brief to the trial court that approximately two-thirds of the structure was completed but remained subject to the elements and was deteriorating rapidly. That statement was un- tree because it was undisputed that the structure was dismantled completely onApril 14, 2005. Korbel also stated that he had received all the necessary permits from the coast guard. This was untrue; he had withdrawn his application and claimed that the houseboat was sold. Ultimately, Korbel and his attorney were sanc- tioned correctly for their claims. see also: Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki, 798 N.E. 2d 1047 (2003). see also: Dreikausen v. Zoning Board of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 774 N.E.2d 193 (2002). 1 72 © 2006 Quintan Puafishing Group. Any reproduction is pro~ibitecL For more information please call (817) 542-0048.