Source: http://www.crotonblog.com/archives/2005/12/08/the_minority_report/quickening_the_demise_of_harmful_land_uses_1/index.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:03:13+00:00

Document:
At the Village Board meeting on December 5, 2005, Trustee Charlie Kane proposed that the Board reexamine its amortization provisions with respect to nonconforming uses. This report explains what amortization is, how it works, and how it may be used to bring certain arguably valid nonconforming uses – such as waste transfer stations – to an end.
Zoning provisions are complex tools used by communities to balance public good versus private property rights. Zoning amortization allows a village, city or town to phase out over a number of years specific non-conforming land uses. Such non-conforming land uses may be created by the adoption of new zoning—as Croton has done in recent years—that is more restrictive than prior codes. Amortization may allow termination of an undesirable or potentially harmful use without compensation to the property owner. Without amortization, such non-conforming uses may be “grandfathered” and remain for decades. How might amortization be applied in Croton?
Amortization is already part of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson zoning code in Chapter 230-53-E, last amended on November 10, 1960. (See Appendix 1.) We believe now, forty-five years later, we should examine the pros and cons of adding the amortization for non-conforming uses in the Light Industrial zone within the Village of Croton-on-Hudson. For example, transfer stations may be able to be amortized out of existence.
In 2000 and 2001, prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan by the village board, the Comprehensive Plan Committee discussed non-conforming uses that would result from the proposed modernizations of our zoning code. Some non-conforming uses may be quite tolerable, while others may constitute public nuisances or worse. The Comprehensive Plan Committee did not reach a consensus on whether to include amortization terms for any zoning districts, and, hence, the zoning revisions were adopted without any added provisions on amortizing out an undesirable or potentially harmful use. But, now four years later, we should re-open the examination of this tool again, especially for the removal of certain nonconforming uses that run counter to the now adopted comprehensive plan for the village and fall at the most publicly harmful end of the spectrum.
Local municipalities for many years have used zoning to regulate land use and private property, by right. The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly sanctioned this legislative technique (police power) in a 1926 decision. As communities and local economies change, zoning adjustments over time make some prior land uses now non-conforming. An inherent conflict exists between property owners seeking financial return for outmoded uses and structures and the municipality seeking to protect the health, welfare and safety in upholding the public good for the future development of the community. During the past fifty years municipalities have developed new techniques to reduce non-conformance with zones as quickly as possible taking into account the interests of all parties. The U.S. Supreme Court decided recently in Kelo v. New London, Connecticut, that certain property rights may yield to the common interests in the health, safety and welfare of residents and local land use policies. Amortization is one such technique that municipal legislative bodies developed to curtail undesirable, non-conforming uses while taking into account private property rights.
Many courts in a majority of states have upheld legislatively enacted amortization law that gradually eliminates non-conforming uses to accomplish the zoning objectives of compatible and homogenous land use. Using this zoning tool, a municipality establishes a reasonable period of time whereby the property owner will be allowed to recoup a major part of his investment in a non-conforming use, or, at the very least, satisfy his expectation of interest on the investment. After the time period elapses, the non-conforming use terminates.
(1) When the common law of nuisance would allow neighboring property owners to enjoin the continuation of a non-conforming use; several examples are a junkyard, auto wrecker, or gravel pit, which may be harmful to children in a residential neighborhood.
(2) When the non-conforming use is partially noxious and the owner has little investment in it. More difficult cases are those where the owner has a significant investment in the use and the public interest in removing it is clear but where the threat to public health and safety is not imminent.
We look forward to an active consideration of this policy tool by the village and to input and reactions from residents. Amortization may provide a way for us to legislate, rather than litigate, our way toward the village we all want.
§ 230-53. Regulation and control.
(2) Shall not be changed to another nonconforming use without a special permit from the Village Board of Trustees and then only to a use which, in the opinion of said Board, is of the same or a more restricted nature.
(3) Shall not be reestablished if such use has been discontinued for any reason for a period of one year or more or has been changed to or replaced by a conforming use. Intent to resume a nonconforming use shall not confer the right to do so.
(1) Structurally altered or enlarged.
(2) Moved to another location where such use would be nonconforming.
(3) Restored for other than a conforming use after damage from any cause exceeding 50% of the replacement cost of such building, exclusive of foundations. Any such building, damaged to a lesser extent may be restored but not enlarged and the nonconforming use reinstated within one year of such damage; if the restoration of such building is not completed within said one-year period, the nonconforming use of such building shall be deemed to have been discontinued unless such nonconforming use is carried on without interruption in the undamaged portion of such building.
D. Nothing in this article shall be deemed to prevent normal maintenance and repair of any building, the carrying out upon the issuance of a building permit of major structural alterations or demolitions necessary in the interest of public safety. In granting such a permit, the Village Engineer shall state the precise reason why such alterations were deemed necessary.
(1) In any residence district, any nonconforming use of open land, including such uses as a parking lot, trailer, junkyard or open storage yard for materials or equipment, may be continued for two years after November 10, 1960, provided that on the expiration of that period such nonconforming use shall be terminated.
(2) In any residence district, any sign not of a type permitted or of a permitted type but greater than two times the maximum permitted size may be continued for one year after November 10, 1960, provided that on the expiration of that period such nonconforming use shall be terminated.
(3) In any nonresidential district, any sign not of a type permitted or of a permitted type but greater than two times the maximum permitted size may be continued for two years after November 10, 1960, provided that on the expiration of that period such nonconforming use shall be terminated.
Chapter § 270-43. Termination of nonconforming uses.
A. In any residence district, any nonconforming use of open land, including but not limited to such uses as a parking lot, trailer, junkyard or open storage yard for materials or equipment, may be continued for three years after the effective date of this chapter, provided that after the expiration of that period such nonconforming use shall be terminated.
B. Any sign not of a type permitted or of a permitted type but of a size exceeding the maximum permitted area by more than 10% may be continued for one year following the effective date of this chapter, provided that, after the expiration of that period, such nonconforming use shall be terminated. Any sign that is now nonconforming by reason of a previous law shall be terminated within six months of the adoption of this chapter.
Chapter § 116-19. Nonconforming uses, buildings and structures.
G. Compulsory termination of nonconforming structure or use.
(1) A nonconforming structure or nonconforming use may be subject to compulsory termination by the municipal legislative body when it is found detrimental to the conservation of the value of the surrounding land and improvements or to future development of surrounding lands and therefore is tending to deteriorate or blight the neighborhood. Editor’s Note: As to the removal of hazardous structures, see Ch. 47, Buildings, Unsafe.
(2) In ordering the compulsory termination of a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use, the municipal legislative body will establish a definite and reasonable amortization period during which the nonconforming use may continue while the investment value remaining after the date of the termination order is amortized. Determination of the amount to be amortized shall be based on the value and condition of the land and improvements for the nonconforming use less their value and condition for a conforming use and such other reasonable costs as the termination may cause. The rate of shall be in accordance with reasonable economic practice.
§ 136-9. Vested rights; period.
Any person, firm, corporation or other entity that holds, on April 6, 2004, a valid license for a bed-and-breakfast, rooming house, inn, or hotel/motel, issued under the provisions of this chapter as they existed on April 6, 2004, shall have the right to renew said license according to the definitions of this chapter as they existed on April 6, 2004. This right may be exercised only with respect to said previous definitions and shall not apply to any other previous provision or provisions of this chapter. This right shall vest on the applicant only and shall not be transferred or assigned. This right may be exercised by a licensee for a time no longer than the next two renewal periods subsequent to April 6, 2004.
Chapter § 300-193.16. Amortization of nonconforming signs.
A. All nonconforming signs with a replacement cost of less than $100 shall be removed or made to conform within 60 days of the effective date of this article.
C. Any owner of a sign who requests an period longer than one year shall, within 60 days from the date of enactment of this article, file with the Building Inspector a sworn statement and documentation as to the cost of the sign, the date of erection or the cost and date of the most recent renovation and a written agreement to remove the sign at or before the expiration of the period applicable to the sign. Failure to file such a statement shall require removal of such sign within one year of the effective date of this article.
D. In the event of any disagreement between the sign owner and the Building Inspector as to the cost of the sign, the Building Inspector’s determination of such cost shall be final.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in Subsection A above, a sign that was in existence prior to December 18, 1998, and that was constructed in accordance with other applicable laws in effect on the date of its construction, which by reason of its size, height, location, design, or construction is not in conformance with the requirements of this chapter shall be issued a nonconforming sign permit if an application is made in accordance with this chapter.
(2) Such permit shall allow sign(s) with a commercial message made nonconforming by this Signs Chapter to remain in place and be maintained until December 18, 2001. On or before that date, all such nonconforming signs with a commercial message issued such nonconforming sign permit shall either be eliminated or made to conform with the requirements of this Signs Chapter and such period of time shall be deemed sufficient to amortize the cost thereof.
(3) Except as otherwise set forth in § 172-7F of this chapter, no other provisions of this Signs Chapter shall require the removal of any existing sign containing a noncommercial message that is issued a nonconforming sign permit.
This comment has been posted on behalf of Ann Gallelli, as per her request.
Amortization appears to be an avenue that the Village should actively research and analyze to see how well it might work for Croton. It has the benefit of being an action that we can move ahead with independent of ongoing, concurrent actions. We need to move beyond simply being reactive to the decisions of other bodies and be proactive on Croton’s behalf.
I hope the Village Board will take a careful look at amortization as a zoning tool to help eliminate prohibited uses in the Village.
Buried in all the minutia of sidewalk parking and snow-induced DPW problems at the Village Board meeting on December 5th was this truly exciting proposal by Trustee Charlie Kane. Trustee Kane is so averse to grandstanding that you easily could have missed it – and I thank Trustees Kane and Wiegman for taking the time to post all of this fabulous information to the Blog.
Amortization is potential dynamite that could blow NIR/Regus to pieces. At the risk of being repetitive, I just want to emphasize and explain some of the key points made above, especially as they might apply to eradicating the use of the Metro Enviro site as a waste transfer operation.
Amortization puts a limit – usually a time limit – on how long a property owner can continue a nonconforming use. (A nonconforming use is one that is not permitted under the zoning laws. Generally, when zoning laws change to prohibit a currently existing use, the property owner is allowed to continue that use as a “preexisting nonconforming use”).
What amortization could do is provide that, even if Greentree is right that it is allowed to operate a waste transfer station as a preexisting nonconforming use (a position we are contesting in court), it can only continue that use for, say, five years. Then it’s over. Forever. At a minimum, we would be looking at no waste transfer station when the time period was up. More significantly, we would deter any serious business owner from making an investment in an operation that would be illegal in a relatively short time period.
Amortization provisions are perfectly legal and have been upheld by New York’s highest courts. As common sense would dictate and the law recognizes, property owners do not get to continue their nonconforming uses forever. As long as a municipality has a valid amortization provision, the property owner must abide by it.
Our present Republican Board Majority and its myriad legal advisors are much too focused on litigation as the exclusive legal weapon of choice in the fight against a waste transfer station in the Village. That is very expensive and short-sighted. We also need to have legislation in place that provides additional offense and defense.
A reasonably competent Board Majority committed to eliminating the possibility of a waste transfer station might have considered what they could do as legislators to accomplish that aim.
Amortization is a superb first step, and I hope that Trustee Kane and Wiegman continue to advocate for it, and that the rest of the Board will direct their highly touted counsel to determine whether amortization would work for us, and if so, bring a proposed local law to the table quickly.

References: v. 

§ 230
 § 270
 § 116

§ 136
 § 300
 § 172