Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

g.g. September 25, 2005 -- Page 7 cepts subject to open-ended interpretation. The fact that an enforcement officer could not choose to issue citations in every instance where the ordinance was violated did not render the ordinance unconstitutionally vague. Importantly, the ordinance's language itself did not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. see also: Taylor Commons v. Taylor, 644 N.W. 2d 773 (2002). see also: Wysocki v. Felt, 639 N.W. 2d 572 (2001). Variance -- Several conditions attach to variance allowing landscaping. equipment storage Basically limits storage to winter months CitatiOn: Ringland v. Tassoni, Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, No. PC 03-5648 (2005) RHODE ISLAND (07/29/05) ~ Ringland's son lived with his parents and oper- ated a' landscaping business from the property. Ringland built a garage for his son to use as a storage facility for his landscaping equipment and supplies. Because businesses were prohibited in the residential area, Ringland also ap- plied for a use variance to allow the equipment storage. The Smithfield Zoning Board of Review ~anted the variance request with several conditions. These conditions included two four-week windows when the equipment could be removed or returned to the property (effectively limit- ing equipment storage to the winter months); a set time in the day for this removal and return; and a restriction to storing only one backhoe, one Bobcat, mowers, one dump truck, one pick-up truck, and three trailers. Ringland sued, arguing the conditions were unreasonable. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the board. The conditions were reasonable, Evidence indicated concern that Ringland's son was trying to expand his business by obtaining additional equipment. In fact, a neighbor testified "in- stead of one trailer and one Bobcat, he now has two trailers and two Bobcats, dump trucks, and other vehicles coming and going." By requiring the conditions, the board was in effect preventing additional. equipment from entering the property..The board had the discretion to minimize adverse impacts by restricting the type and intensity of a variance allowing equipment storage. The court concluded that the board established a reasonable method to limit the amount of equipment moving On and off the property. see also: Mill Reat~. Associates v. Crowe, 841 A.2d 668 (2004). see also: Kaveny v. Town of Cumberland Zoning Board of Review, 875 A.2d ] (2005). 2005 Qu~nlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 217