Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

Page 2--July 10, 2005 Variances w Board uses boilerplate reasons for denials Fails to tailor decisions to individual properties Citation: Dicon Corporation Inc. v. The Town of Johnston Zoning Board of Review, Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, No. PC 04-305J (2005) RHODE ISLAND (05/23/05) w Dicon Corporation Inc. applied for dimensional variances on two neighboring lots, Lot 53 and Lot 55. It wanted to improve the lots and build luxury homes. At the heating on the matter, several neighbors testified in opposition to the dimensional variances, citing crowding and water-runoff concerns. Ultimately, the town of Johnston's Zoning Board of Review unanimously denied the applications, citing the-fact that the 'lots were substandard as the reason for the denial. · Dicon sued, arguing the board's decisions were based on insufficient evidence. DECK. ON: Judgment in favor of Dicon. The board's findings of fact and decision were. inadequate, amounting to unsupported conclusions. . The board's decisions were not based on facts presented at the hearing, but rather, were mere conclusions, which were unsupported by the evidence. The board's decisions on both Lot 53 and Lot 55 amounted to nothing more than boilerplate language found in the standard for granting a dimensional vas-ii once. The two decisions, though applicable to both lots, differed only insofar as to'distinguish the lots. The written decisions were nearly identical, substituting only the lot number, square footage, and zoning district, but retaining boilerplate findings and conclusions, In fact, the second page of each decision was merely a photocopy of the first. Finally, there were several mistakes regarding the two different properties, and both decisions had the exact same time and date stamp, A page of hollov~ conclusions could not withstand judicial scrutiny. Deci- sions had to be tailored to each property, address the appropriate facts and evidence related to each individual piece of property, and set forth clear rea- sons that supported denial of relief. see also: yon Bernuth v. Zoning Board of Review of New Shoreham, 770 A.2d 396 (2001). Variances -- Board derdes variance for private pool Gives no reasons for decision Citation: Board of Adjustment of the City of Piney Point Village v. Solar, Court of Appeals of Texas, 14th Dist., Houston, No. 14-04-00419CV(2005) TEXAS (05/19/05) ~ Solar decided to build a swimming pool for his family's private use, but the characteristics of Solar's property made this diffiult to accomplish. Importantly, the pool only could be placed in Solar's side Yard. Because Solar's proposed swimming pool would consume most of the side © 2005 Ouinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542.-0048. 212 ~