Laserfiche WebLink
May 10, 2006 -- Page 7 <br /> <br /> Moon applied for a variance to allow for the construction of a second story, <br />which was within the original footprint of the existing structure. The Madison <br />Board of Zoning Appeals (board) denied Moon's request on two grounds. <br />First, the addition of a second story was incompatible with the surrounding <br />area. Second, Moon failed to demonstrate exceptional difficulty or unusual <br />hardship, which were requisites for granting a variance. <br /> Before the board denied Moon's request, Moon had applied for a building <br />permit. The Madison Zoning Enforcement Officer denied that request. <br /> Moon appealed the decisions of the board and the enforcement officer, <br />arguing that: 1) the board incorrectly denied his application for variance; and 2) <br />he should not have needed a variance to perform the desired renovations on <br />his home. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> The court found that the Madison Zoning Regulation stated that a noncon- <br />forming building could not be structurally altered unless the altered or enlarged <br />portion donformed to the zoning regulation. If it did not, a variance was re- <br />quixed. The court found that Moon's renovation plans required a variance. <br /> Moon's house did not meet the requirements of the zoning regulation. The <br />required front-yard setback was 40 feet; the existing house was only setback <br />18.8 feet. The proposed second story was entirely within the building's original <br />footprint, but enlarged the existing nonconformity. Since the addition did not <br />meet the front-yard setback, the application was properly denied. <br /> The court further ruled that the board could have granted a variance only if it <br />found that the variance did not affect the comprehensive zoning plan and that <br />strictly adhering to the comprehensive zoning plan would have caused an undue <br />hardship. The court agreed with the board that the proposed addition did not <br />comply with the zoning regulation because the altered house would have been <br />too bulky for the neighborhood and inconsistent with the zoning plan. <br />see also: Wvian v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 823 A.2d 374 (2003). <br />see also: Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Norwalk, 820 A.2d 275 <br />(2003).. <br /> <br />Development-- Planner seeks certificate of approval despite board denying <br />its master plan I <br />Board exceeded 120-day deliberation period in reaching its decision <br />Citation: New England Development LLC v. Noel Berg, Superior Court of <br />Rhode Island, NC-06-0026 (2006) i <br />RHODE ISLAND (03/06/06) -- On Sept. 3, 2004, NeTM England Development <br /> · I <br />LLC (NED) submitted a master plan to the Planmng Board of the Town of <br />Tiverton (board) to develop a business, office, and consumer service complex. <br />On Oct. 27, 2004, the board issued a certificate of completeness, meaning that <br /> <br />© 2006 Quinlan Publisining Group· Any reproduction is prohibited· For mere information please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />79 <br /> <br /> <br />