Development

In neighbors' article 78 proceeding to review the ZBA's determination that a use variance permitted landowner to operate a concrete manufacturing plant, neighbors appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of the proceeding for lack of standing. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the complaint.

Landowner owns a parcel that has been used as a concrete batch plant since at least 1949. Although the zoning ordinance prohibits manufacturing on the site unless fewer than five people are engaged in the manufacturing, landowner obtained a variance in 1948 permitting operation with more than five people. In 2016, current owner bought the parcel and leased the property to Titan to refurbish and operate the plant. The town revoked the building permit after an accident during the renovation work. In 2017, the town building inspector revoked the building permit, concluding that the cement plant use was a pre-existing nonconforming use, and that because of an extended discontinuance, landowner could no longer resume that use. When landowner produced the 1948 variance, the building inspector adhered to his initial determination, concluding that the variance was not a use variance that ran with the land to the benefit of the current owner. Upon landowner's appeal to the ZBA, that board disagreed with the building inspector and concluded that the building inspector was empowered to reissue a building permit. Two sets of adjacent property owners then brought this article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed for lack of standing and the adjacent owners appealed.