Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/2006

Home

84 Page 4-- May 25, 2006 Z.B. Sweeney applied to the board of appeals to determine the designation of his planned business. The board ruled that pest extermination fell under the "home professional office" designation, Neighboring property owners sued to prevent Sweeney from operating his business from his home, and the court ruled in their favor. The board appealed, arguing that pest extermination fit under the zoning definition of home professional office, and should be allowed. DECISION: Affirmed. A pest-extermination business did not qualify as a home professional office. The zoning ordinance defined "home professional office" as "It]he office of a resident professional person, such as a dentist, physician, musician, engi- neer, teacher, lawyer, artist, architect, or members of other recognized profes- sions.'' "Professional" referred to the learned professions, such as law and medi- cine, which required extensive formal learning and training, licensure and regu- lation indicating a qualification to practice, a code of conduct imposing stan- dards beyond those accepted in the marketplace, and a System of discipline for violating those standards. Although exterminators had to be certified by the Department of Environmental Conservation, this licensure was insufficient to categorize the occupation as a profession because it did not require extensive specialized training and educa- tion. The exterminator certification requirements existed more for the purpose of controlling dangerous chemicals than regulating the practice of a profession. Even though pest exterminators, had industry publications, state and na- tional associations, and training and education requirements for certification, this occupation was closer to a simple business than a clear profession. see also: Center Square Association v. City of Albany Board of Zoning Appeals, 9 A.D.3d 651 (2004). see also: Gallahan v. Planning Board of City of Ithaca, 307 A.D.2d 684 (2003). Appeal -- Landowner appeals decision denying variance based on merger provision Previous landowner illegally subdivided, then sold merged property as two lots Citation: Maron v. The North Providence Zoning Board of Review, Superior Court of Rhode Island, No. PC 04-5415 (2006) RHODE ISLAND (04/12/06) -- Maron bought a 4,744 square-foot lot in North Providence from Colaluca on Oct. 10, 1978. His daughter bought the adjacent lot, which was also owned by Colaluca, on the same day. The lot that Maron's daughter bought was 4,426 square feet.' The properties were located in an R-80 zone, which was a residential area that permitted single-family homes and had a minimum lot-size requirement of 8,000 square feet. In 1979, Maron's daughter © 2006 Quintan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 5424048..