Laserfiche WebLink
130 <br /> <br />Page 4 February 1 O, 2003 <br /> <br /> In 1965, the town. issued a letter recognizing the two-family dwelling as a legal <br /> nonconforming use. In 1'984, there was a fire. <br /> AlthOUgh the town had doubts regarding the property's status, it took no <br /> official action.to revoke the nonconforming use. status. In fact, it sent several <br /> letters and a certificate of occupancy stating the use remained a legal noncon- <br /> forming use, even after 1984. However, when Norton applied for a rental <br /> mit, the town refused on the basis Norton's use was noncordorming. It claimed <br />it automatically lost its nonconforming status after the fire. Norton sued, and the court ruled in favor of the town. <br /> Norton sued again, claiming the town violated his due process rights. Dur- <br />Lng the lower court trial, he discovered the town based its decision on two <br />determinations notated on his certificate of occupancy that were added' shortly <br />after the certLficate was.issued. He argued he was provided no notice or oppor- <br />t'unity to be heard on these determinations. <br /> <br />DECISION: Judgment in favor of Norton. <br /> The town violated' Norton's due process rights. <br /> The town claimed the nonconforming use was terminated as soon as the <br />property was allegedly left vacant for one year after the 1984 fare. <br /> State law stated abandonment constituted "just cause" for termJnatLng a <br />nonconforming use. However, fids did not mean nonconforming uses.termi- <br />nated by matter of law without any official determination of abandonment. <br /> The nonconforming use vested as a result of. the issuance of an official <br />town permit that was relied 'upon by the owner. It could not terminate without <br />any affLrmative act by the town. <br /> <br />Citation: Norton. v. ToWn of[slip, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District <br />of New York, No. CV 98-06745 (NGG) (2003): <br /> <br />see also: Stephentown Concerned Citizens.v. Herrick, 246 A.D.2d 166 (1998). <br />see also: [.N.S..v. St. Cyre, 533 U.S. 289 (2001). <br /> <br />First Amendment m County tells dub topless dancers can't dance even <br />while clothed <br />Business had to be five miles from a municipality <br /> <br />TEXAS (12/31/02) m K. Smartt Investments Inc. owned and operated. Xoficas, <br />an adult entertaSnment business featuring topless female dancers. <br /> Smartt requested a permit to operate a sexually-oriented buskness. The <br />county denied the permit on the grounds that the business was.withLn five miles <br />of the City of Laredo. Perm/ts required "the location of the nearest'boundary of <br />the proposed sexually-oriented business ... be located at least five mi/es from a <br />municipality." The next day, Xoticas was closed down. <br /> Smartt sued; and the court ruled in favor of the county. <br /> Smartt appealed, arguing the county violated its'F/fsi Amendment r/ghts. <br /> <br /> I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />