Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/08/2011

Home

July 10, 2011 I Volume 51 No. 13 Zoning Bulletin it was a specific change, individual written notice was required under Rhode Island's Zoning Enabling Act of 1991, § 45-24-53(c). They further contended that because the Town did not comply with this requirement, Ordinance 99-127Z and the related 1999 Amendments were invalid. Section 45-24-53(b) mandates that "[w]here a proposed general amendment to an existing zoning ordinance includes changes in an existing zoning map," only "public notice" is necessary. However, "[w]here a proposed amendment to an existing ordinance includes a specific change in a zoning district map, but does not affect dis- tricts generally," § 45-24-53(c) additionally requires "[w]ritten notice ... to all owners of real property whose property is located in or within not less than two hundred feet of the perimeter of the area proposed for change ...." The court agreed with the Owners. The hearing justice conclud- ed that because the zoning changes brought by Ordinance 99-127Z were not "universal," the rezoning of the Owners' Property was specific, not general, and required individual written notice. The Town appealed. On appeal, it argued that the Ordinance and the 1999 Amendments "[did not] target a specific parcel for change, leaving districts generally unaffected;" rather they "effected a sea change in the zoning scheme for the community at large." They main- tained that the only kind of notice necessary regarding the Ordinance and the 1999 Amendments was public notice, which was made. On appeal, the Owners maintained their argument that the zon- ing changes were specific, requiring individual written notice (not just public notice), because not all of the properties in the original zoning districts were affected in the same way. DECISION: Vacated, reversed, and remanded. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that the Ordinance and 1999 Amendments were "general," and therefore under 5 45-24- 53(b) required only public notice. The court found that Ordinance 99-127Z, as a whole, "was a far-reaching ordinance that did not single out a specific property for revision, but rather completely overhauled the towns' zoning mo- saic to conform to the comprehensive plan." The Ordinance "ul- timately placed about 50 percent of the land area of the [T]own into a different zoning district." Given that "extensive nature," the court concluded that the 1999 Amendments did not include a "spe- cific change" that "[did] not affect districts generally." 6 © 2011 Thomson Reuters