Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2004

Home

July 10, 2004 -- Page 7 The relevant law referred to "zoning regulations" without qualification. Nothing in its language suggested area variances for special use zoning regu- lations had to be treated differently than area vaiZiances from general zoning requirements. To argue a zoning board of appeals could vary certain zoning provisions only if expressly empowered to do so by the town board overlooked the entire purpose of the zoning board of appeals, which was to provide relief in indi- vidual cases from the rigid application of zoning regulations enacted by the local legislative body. see also: Cominco Inc. v. AmeIkm, 465 N.E. 2d 314 (1984). see also: Knadle v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 121 A.D.2d 447 (1986). Appeal -- Board minutes state many possible reasons for denial Unclear what was the actual reasoning Citation: Zavota v. The Zoning Board of Review for the Town of Barrington, &tperior Co~trr of Rhode Island, Providence, No. PC/2002-1905 (2004) RHODE ISLAND (05/07/04) -- Zavota wanted to build a home on a smalI substandard plat in a residential neighborhood consisting mainly of small, single-story ranch houses. To fit his desired home on the property,, Zavota applied to the Zoning Board o~' Review for the town of Barrington for dimensional vari ,~nces, hoping to build a two-story residence. During the hearing, Zavota presented expert testimony a smaller home on the property would be impractical. However, several neighbors testified in opposition, expressing concern over the two-story proposal and their belief no building should be placed on the lot at all. The board ultimately refused the variance, but provided no clear reason for doing so. Zavota appealed the board's decision, arguing its lack of a clearly stated reason for denial was illegal. DECISION: Reversed. 'Under the circumstances, it was not sufficient for {he board to deny Zavota's application for dimensional variances by simply stating its generalized, vary- ing views, as it did in the "Discussion" section of the minutes, that the pro- posed residence was either too big for the lot, too big for the neighborhood, or the wrong type o[' house. The board's statements were ambiguous and could reflect an unprincipled reje,,:tion o1: expert testimony presented at the hearing or an improper applica- tion of the variance standards [o the facts. Ultin'xa[eb/. the rec~)rd had to >ansi ... 'a court :.,'~at ,.ne board was not denvin~ '~; 200,: '~l.lllll;~tll ;~,~i)lisnmg :3~c:up. :~lly :eplouuc. tJon .';-.)roi~ibi~e,':i. ,:,;,rnore ;nforma~ic, n .)lease ~.'all (617! .~42.-0048. 141