Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2011

Home

May 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 9 Zoning Bulletin Neighbors argued that the building plans and permit "indicate[d] the expansion and intensification of a non -conforming use in a resi- dential zone." Eventually, a superior court judge agreed with the Neighbors. Among other things, the judge concluded that: "the evidence clear- ly demonstrate[d] that the marina activities [were] intended to co- alesce with operation of the clubhouse"; and "a tandem marina/ clubhouse operation [was] contrary to the applicable law regarding non -conforming uses :and must be disallowed." The judge declared that the marina "was an unlawful expansion of a nonconforming use" and "must be prohibited" because such operations did not ex- ist when the TYC clubhouse became a nonconforming use in 1964. TYC appealed. Among other things, TYC argued that the trial judge erred when she prohibited it from operating the marina be- cause the marina was located "on waterfront property zoned to permit such use as a matter of right." DECISION: Vacated in part. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held, among other hold- ings, that TYC's marina was not an expansion of TYC's noncon- forming use of the clubhouse lot property. From the establishment of the marina, the TYC's Marina Lot had been zoned to permit the operation of a marina. The court acknowledged that the clubhouse lot and the Marina Lot shared ownership and that the marina was for the exclusive use of TYC members. However, the court found it error that the trial judge had "reached across [the road] to prohib- it the legal operation of the marina." The marina was "physically separate and exist[ed] independently from the TYC [clubhouse] and vice versa," found the court. As a private —property owner, TYC had the right to sell the Marina Lot, and the new owner could le- gally operate the marina. Accordingly, under those circumstances, the court found the trial judge erred in finding that the marina and the clubhouse were "tandem" entities and that the marina was an "impermissible expansion of a nonconforming use on a wholly dis- tinct lot as a result of the TYC's use of th[e] waterfront lot as a ma- rina for its members." Rather, the court found that the judge had "incorrectly treated the marina and clubhouse lots as essentially one lot, despite the presence of [the road] between them ...." See also: San filippo v. Board of Review of Town of Middletown, 96 R.I. 17, 188 A.2d 464 (1963). 8 © 2011 Thomson Reuters