Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2006

Home

( July 25, 2006- Page 7 ZB. refute the community groups' claims and prevent the preliminary injunction. see also:', Craig v. City of New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments, 903 So.2d 530 (2004). ( \. Certificate of Occupancy - Building official refuses to issue certificate of occupancy Zoning violations uncovered during inspection Citation:Scottv. Santilli, Superior Court of Rhode Island, Washington, No. WC 01-0163(2006) RHODE ISLAND (06/06/06) - Scott owned a home in an R -10 zoning district, which allowed for a two-family dwelling on lots that exceeded 20,000 square feet in area. Due to its lot size, Scott's property could beused fora single-family ~ dwelling only. On May 31, 2000, Scott applied for a building perInit to construct a second- story addition to his home. The town building official denied Scott's applica- tion. Scott appealed this decision to the Board of Zoning Review. The board found in Scott's favor and the permits were issued. The building official subsequently received complaints from adjoining prop- erty owners that Scott had a second-floor dwelling unit, which was impennissible in that zoning district. Upon inspection of the property, the building official found that the second floor of the dwelling contained a bathroom, a kitchen with a small refrigerator, and a locked door that prohibited access to the fIrst floor of the house. The building official explained that the locked door created an illegal second dwelling unit, and it had to be removed and replaced with a non-locking bifold door for an occupancy permit to be issued. Scott agreed to remove the door. On Nov. 29,2000, the assistant building official visited the property for a fmal inspection and observed that the locked door had not been replaced. On , Nov. 30,2000, the building official sent a written decision to Scott stating that the locked door must be removed and replaced. Failure to comply with the decision would result in the revocation of the building permit and would pre- vent a certifIcate of occupancy from being issued. . Scott appealed the building official's decision to the board. On March 19, 200 l, the board issued a decision which affmned the building official's N ovem- ber 2000 decision. Scott appealed to the state superior court. DECISION: Affinned. The central issue in this case was whether a building official could withhold a certifIcate of occupancy due to the landowner's failure to cure a zoning violation. In this type of action, a court could not substitute its decision for that of, the zoning board. It must review the zoning board's decision to make sure that the decision: 1) did not violate any constitutional or statutory provisions; 2) did not exceed the authority of the zoning board; 3) adhered to lawful procedures; 4) made no error oHaw; 5) was not erroneous in view of the evidence presented; @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited, For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 99