Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2004

Home

Page $ -- April 10, 2004 Importantly, the 15 percent building coverage restriction applied to any property with buildings on which intensive a~mdculmral use was proposed, so there could be no dil:ferential treatment involved. see also: Advantage Development [nc. v. Board of Super,;isors of Jackson Township, 743 A.2d 1008 (2000). Subdivision -- Developer wants to develop without water connection Town requires connection to water supply before issuing permit for substandard lots Citation: Mill Reat~ Aa'xociates v. Crowe, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, No. 2002-433~M.P. (2004) RHODE ISLAND (02/17/04) -- MSll Re'alU Associates wanted to develop a portion of its property as a subdivision. However, the property had no avail- able water supply. Under the town zorgng code, properties without a connec- tion to water had to be at least one acre ha size. Mill Realty's plans called for lots smaller than one acre. Consequently, the town's building ol2icial refused to issue a building perm/t, having concluded the property required access to public water. The zoning board afl'n-reed the decision of the building official and specifically declared a building permit would be issued il' access to the public water supply was accomplished. M_ill Realty sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. Mill Realty appealed, arguing because the lot was recorded in 1896, it did not need to meet the one-acre lot size requirement for lots not serviced by public water. DECISION: '~med. The board could require Mill Realty to obtaia access to public water or construct a private well. There was no evidence a water 1/ne could not be reasonably accomplished. Mill Realty lolled to present any expert testimony or engineering, studies con- cerning the projected costs associated with installing a water hne or any po- tend'at diI51culty anticipated by its construction. The undisputed evidence was that a connection to the water supply could be accomplished. Thus, the board's decision that a building permit would only be issued if MLll Realty connected to the water 1/ne was supported by substan- tial evidence. ' ,adl other lots in the area were subject to the requirement of public water as part of the town's orderly planning for furore residents. As such, Mill Realty's plot wasn't faced with any unique requirements. see ~tso: Miil R~ealP? Asa'ociates v. Zoning Board of Review of Cove~rC;, 72] A.2d 8,~37 (i998). ,~ 2004 tT~uinian P'Jciishmg Grouu. Any reproduction is pronibited, For more information ¢iease call (817) 542-0048. 144