Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2006

Home

Page 8 - November 10,2006 Z.B. Appeal- Neighbor opposes variance due to pending adverse possession claim on property Property owner sought variance after subdivision created nonconforming lot Citation: Romanik v. Town of Glocester Zoning Board of Review, Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, No. 05-45012006 (2006) RHODE ISLAND (09/15/06) - Bonoyer was the owner of a 14.6-acre parcel of property in an A-4 zoning district in the town of Glocester. Bonoyer sought to subdivide her property into two lots to allow her son to build a home for his family on the second lot. The subdivision plan sought to create Lot 2, which would encompass 7.1 acres and contain Bonoyer's home, and to create Lot 1, which would contain 7.5 acres, on which Bonoyer's son would construct a residence. Lot 2 satisfied all dimensional requirements for the district; however, Lot 1 failed to satisfy the 350-foot lot width requirement. Bonoyer filed an application for a dimensional variance to the zoning board of review. At a hearing, Romanik, an abutting property owner, objected to the vari- ance. Romanik stated that he was in the process of filing an adverse possession claim against Bonoyer for a 50-foot wide strip of land that ran the length of the property line between his property and Lot 1. Romanik contended that, if he was successful in his adverse possession claim, it would increase the amount of relief required from the width requirement from 98.13 feet to 148.13 feet. Nonetheless, the board voted unanimously to approve Bonoyer's variance request. Romanik appealed. DECISION: Remanded for further proceedings. When a court reviewed a zoning board's decision, it had to review the entire record and determine whether there was substantial evidence to support the decision. Courts have ruled consistently that a zoning board had to demon-:- strate findings of fact to support a challenged decision upon judicial review. To grant a request for a variance, a board had to find that: 1) the hardship from which the applicant sought relief was due to the unique characteristics of the subject property; 2) the hardship was not created by the applicant; 3) the granting of a variance would not alter the character of the surrounding area; and 4) the relief granted was the least relief necessary. Upon review of the record, the court concluded that the board made no actual [mdings of fact, but merely recited a litany of conc1usionary statements without relying on factual support. In addition, the board made no findings regarding the statutory requirements for a dimensional variance. The court held that the board's findings were incomplete, and the decision was returned to the board for additional proceedings. @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 72