Donald A. Vanderveer v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of East Hampton, et al.

Since 1947, Petitioner Vanderveer’s Family has owned 3+ acres of land (with a small barn) in the Town of East Hampton, New York. Petitioner asserts he has a “grandfathered” commercial use for “storage, warehouse and distribution facilities” as it’s shown on the real property tax bills for decades, and that is how they used the land. In 2015, the Town placed the land on a list of properties for potential acquisition and appraisals, and it also began to criminally prosecute Petitioner for its use for a commercial storage location. Following his convictions on 7 charges (all later reversed in April 2021), Petitioner sought to have the Town Zoning Board of Appeals issue a written certification for the land’s use for indoor and outdoor storage under the Town’s Code applicable to legally pre-existing non-conforming uses (i.e., uses before 1957, when the area was first zoned as residential). Petitioner was unsuccessful in preventing the extinguishment of his vested right to use the land commercially because of the Town’s land-use boards’ policy of denying all hearing participants, including an “applicant-party” like Vanderveer, any opportunity to exercise his Right to Cross-Examine adverse witnesses who speak at board hearings and/or submit letters to the boards. 1. Whether the Second Circuit’s Summary Order directly conflicts with Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), which has interpreted the Due Process Clause as requiring that crossexamination of adverse witnesses be afforded to a party where any property or liberty interest is