Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/2006

Home

g.g. May 25, 2006 -- Page 5 built a single-family home on her property. On May 5, 2000, Maron requested a varianCe to waive the 8,000 square-foot minimum so that he could build a house on his lot. The North Providence Zoning Board of Review held two hearings, ultimately denying the ~/pplication on Sept. 21. The board claimed that, under an ordinance that took effect in 1965, the two lots were considered to have merged when they had one owner -- Colaluca. As such, only one single-family house could be built on the merged lot. Maron appealed the board's decision in court, but the court found in favor of the city. In March 2004, Maron submitted a second application for a variance, and another hearing was held. At the hearing, Maron produced a certified copy of the 1965 ordinance that the board cited in denying his initial request. The ordinance did not have a merger provision, but an objector who was present at the hearing stated that he had been required to merge two adjoining lots that he owned in 1963, indicating that there was a merger provision that predated the 1965 ordinance. The board eventually decided that, regardless of when it appeared, the merger provision was in effect when Colaluca owned the property, and he had illegally subdivided it when he sold it to Moran and his daughter as separate lots in 1978. Subsequently, the board denied Moran's request for a variance, and he appealed to the Superior Court of Rhode Island. DECISION: Decision of the board affirmed. State law provided that the court could not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board, but that it could remand the case for further proceedings if the rights of the applicant had been infringed upon. This occurred if the board: 1) violated a constitutional, statutory, ordinance, or planning board provision; 2) acted in excess of its authority; 3) used an illegal procedure; 4) made an error of law; 5) made a decision that was clearly erroneous based on the evidence of the case; or 6) acted arbitrarily or capriciously. The court found that the board had done nothing to warrant re'versing its decision. Further, the court found that it was proper for the board to deny the applica- tion for variance based on the merger provision; in fact, ~anting the variance would have been in excess of its authority. The provision stated that "contigu- ous substandard lots under common ownership may lose their separate identity and be treated as a single parcel for zoning area and frontage requirements." Because neither parcel met the minimum requirements for lot size, they were considered merged when they were under common ownership. Even though Maron was unaware that Colaluca had subdivided the !properly illegally, the board was not obligated to grant him relief in the form Of a variance. see also: Skelley v. Zoning Bd. of Review of the Town of South Kingston, 569 A.2d 1054 (1990).~' see also: R.J.E.P. Assocs. v. btellewell, 560 A.2d 353 (1989). © 2006 Quintan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 85