Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 4 - December 10,2006 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />to use the land for commercial gaming purPoses. <br />While the trust decision was still pendjng;the county and tribe ent~red i,nto <br />a Memorandum of Understanding (MOD). Sinc~ tribal trustland wO)Jldbe P:n- <br />mune from state regulations, the cQunty pur~ued.the MOD as a way to h.old,tlle <br />tribe accountable under certain state environnientaluse and developinel1tlaws. <br />The county board of commissioners. approved the MOU. Alexan~ersonand <br />several neighbors then filed petitions opposing tlie;MOU. .' <br />The board dismissed the petitions, fmding that it ];lad nO jutisdict~on. the <br />board stated that the MOU was simply an agreem~Ii.t between the parties <br />outlining how the tribe would work with the county if the.subjeqt l~dwas <br />put in trust. . . . <br />Alexanderson sued, and the court ruled in favor of.the board's jurisdiction <br />.decision. . . . <br />Alexanderson appealed, arguing that the board had jurisdicti<>D. over the <br />MOD because it was actually an amendinent to the comprehensive plan. <br />DECISION: Reversed and returnedto the board for further proc~~. <br />The MOU was an amendment to the comprehensive plan, not a simple <br />development agreement. Thus, it was within the board's jurisdictic;m. <br />In the MOD, the county agreed to provide water to the subject, land.ln.the <br />comprehensive plan, the county agreed not to provide water at a level incoI1;sis- <br />tent with the comprehensive plan. The tribe proposed to use the land in a <br />manner inconsistent with the current land use designation. In effect, the MOD <br />superseded and amended the comprehensive plan. <br />If the tribe's application was .approved, and the land was d,esignated in <br />trust, the land would be exempt from all state regul~tions, excep~ as; far'as the <br />tribe had consented to the MOU, Upon approval, the MOD wbu~'d gpvel111. <br />Because the MOU explicitly supplied water in violation of the cOlnyrehel1sive <br />plan, making it an amendment to the comprehensive plan, the bOfu'd ha4 juris- <br />diction over it. <br />see also: Wenatchee Sportsmen Association v. Chelal1.County,4 P.3.d 123(20.0.0.). <br /> <br />Variance _ Boarq ,gives construction company setback varian4e withno <br />factual findings in its decision . <br />Neighboring propertJ. owner claims vczriimcegra.nted improp~rly <br />Citation: Demasi v. Town of North Providence Zoning Board of Review, <br />Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, No. PC 0.6-3158:(20.0.6) <br /> <br />RHODE ISLAND (10/18/06) - Branting LLC appli~d for a dinle~siol1a1 va:riance <br />from the minimum setback requirements affecting its land in N oJ:'th Providence. <br />Branting wanted to build a connector between two structUres, build two <br />elevators in newly constructed vestibules, and enlarge the entr)rways to allow <br />for handicap access to the structures. After a hearing, the town~s zoning board <br /> <br />@2006West,aThomsonbusiness.Quinlan™isaThomSonWest brand. Any reproduction is prohibited. <br /> <br />144 <br /> <br />( <br /> <br /> <br />(-.. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />! <br />!: <br />i <br />\ <br />i. <br />; <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />t <br />\ <br />, <br />i <br />\ <br />t <br />~ <br />f. <br /> <br />I <br />\ <br />\ <br />l <br />f: <br />t <br />\ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />