Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2006

Home

Page 4 - November 25,2006 Z.B. had entered into a settlement agreement with the county regarding the sale of topsoil from a construction project on his property. The county responded that the VanDenBerg settlement had nothing to do with Nichols' situation, and it did not approve the modifications. Nichols sued, arguing that the VanDenBerg settlement should apply to his situation as well since they were so similar. DECISION: Judgment in favor ofthe county. The VanDenBerg settlement did not change the otherwise discretionary nature of the issuance of a special use permit. The VanDenBerg settlement with the county created no benefit for Nichols and did not change the county's criteria for determining what constitutes non- commercial sale of material extracted from pond construction. Nichols was not a party to the settlement agreement, nor was he any type of beneficiary of the agreement. In addition, there was no evidence that the county intended the settlement's terms and conditions to be used by other special permit applicants, or to modify the procedures and policies related to special use permitting. see also: Hyde Park Co. v. Santa Fe City Council, 226 F.3d 1207 (2000). see also: Amoco Production Co. v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Sweetwater, 55 P.3d 1246 (2002). Ordinance - Neighbors argue code provision applies to all nonconforming uses Vil?age believes provision only applies to 'open land' Citation: Sterling Basin NeighborhoodAssociation v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Greenport, Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, No. 2006-9063 (2006) NEW YORK (10/06/06) -123 Sterling LLC wanted to develop commercial wa- terfront property in the village of Greenport into a new marina for a mix of commercial and residential uses. Twenty percent of the property was zoned residential in 1971, when the village adopted its zoning code. However, the property's commercial marine use predated the code. As such, the use contin- ued as a prior nonconforming use. The village code stated that: "In any residence district, any nonconforming use of open land, such used as parking lot, house trailer, junkyard, or open storage yard for materials or equipment" lasted for three years. A-fter three years, the use was termin~ted. The Sterling Basin Neighborhood Association sued to stop the develop- ment project, arguing that the property was "open land" and the nonconform- ing use, thus, was terminated under the village code. DECISION: Judgment in favor ofthe board. The property was not covered by the open land section of the village code. @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 76 .-~ . /~. ( ) .)