application to install a separate electric meter "to separate [e]xpenses from the House Meter and the Management Office Meter, so we can [b]ill accordingly". Moreover, even if the Building Inspector had improperly approved plans which violated the town's Zoning Ordinance, the town would not be estopped from correcting the mistake by enforcing its Zoning Ordinance and thus the petitioner's 1987 use variance request could have been denied altogether (see, Matter of Parkview Assocs. v City of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 274, rearg denied 71 N.Y.2d 995, cert denied ___ US ___, 109 S Ct 30; Matter of E.F.S. Ventures Corp. v Foster, 71 N.Y.2d 359; Matter of Plandome Rd. Assocs. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 135 A.D.2d 820). The power to issue a variance rests exclusively with the Zoning Board of Appeals (Matter of Commco, Inc. v Amelkin, 62 N.Y.2d 260) which may decline to exercise its discretion in favor of an applicant whose actual construction has exceeded that which was previously approved (see, Matter of South Path Realty Corp. v Howe, 34 A.D.2d 647, affd 29 N.Y.2d 565). In the instant case, however, the Zoning Board of Appeals did exercise its discretion to issue a use variance terminable upon the expiration of the present tenant's lease, in effect grandfathering the nonconforming use but only as to the present tenant.
Todem Homes, Inc., was adjudged to have a vested right to complete construction of a motel which it began just prior to the enactment of a new zoning ordinance precluding such a use in that area (Town of Southampton v. Todem Homes, 50 A.D.2d 844). The question now presented is whether Todem Homes' vested right included the right to amend its construction plan to add accessory uses which would have been permitted in that zone under the old ordinance, without the necessity of complying with the town's current zoning ordinance. The only right that vested by virtue of commencing construction of the motel pursuant to its valid building permit was the right to complete the project as authorized by the permit and not to add additional or different structures (see Matter of South Path Realty Corp. v. Howe, 34 A.D.2d 647, affd without opn 29 N.Y.2d 565; Matter of Rogers v Department of Housing Bldgs. of City of N.Y., 5 A.D.2d 784; see, also, Matter of Chatsworth 72nd St. Corp. v. Foley, 29 A.D.2d 522). Todem Homes may complete construction pursuant to its vested right according to its building permit or it must comply with the current zoning ordinance with respect to the amended plans developed between itself and the board. Hopkins, J.P., Damiani, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.