Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2003

Home

I I I I I I I I i I I ! I I I I I I Z.B. January 10, 2003 -- Page 3 Nonconforming Use -- Owner claims change in building, size does not affect property's status : · RHODE ISLAND (11/2'6/02) -- Lonardo was the sole Occupant and °Wrier 6f an existing legal nonconforming structure: He applied for anexceptlon or vari- ance from the zoning code of the City of Cranston: Lonard0 wanted to build a two-story addition on the property, effectively tripling.the size of the Original structure. L0nardo claimed his. architectural f'm-n c'ould not be contained within the existing building. Quite simply, he argued the office was neither physically large enough to examine large-scale blue prints nor to condu~t private consul- tations with his clients. The City of Cranston Site Plan Review Committee ·approved· Lonardo's preliminary application subject to two conditions. First, Lonardo had to ac- quire a contiguous lot owned by the state. Second, the Zoning Board Of Re- view had to grant dimensional variances for setbacks and off-Street Parking. The board then approved the findings of the review committee. Neighboring property owners sued[ arguing Lonardo failed to present evi- dence of a sufficient hardship. DECISION: 'Board decision rever~ed. Lonardo did not prove a sufficient hardship. Lonardo had to shoTM the hardships were due to the unique Characteristics of the subject structure or lot and not to a physical or economic disability at- tributable to him. Although Lonardo's hardships were caused by the. Structure's small siz.e, there was.no evidence that the disability he complained of was not due to his own desire to realize greater financial gain. Although one board member said the relief was only to allow Lonardo to function better, the record showed it was Lonard0's intention to increase his workload significantly. When asked whether he .anticipated realizing greater financial gain, Lonardo responded in the affn'mative. 'Consequently, the ap- proval should not have been· granted. Citation: Altomari v. Doran, Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, No. PC 2001~4081 (2002). see also: SNET Cellular Inc. v. Angell; 99 F. Suppi2d 190. (2000). see also: Sciacca. v. Caruso, 769'A.2d 578 (2001'). Nonconforming Use.-- Owner wants'to expand trailer home in subdivision SOUTH DAKOTA (11/26/02) -- For many years, Rapp had two trailer homes on his property in the city of Marion. In June 1'997, the city adopted a comprehensive zoning-plan and enacted zoning regulations that made Rapp!s property part.of a residential'district. The placement of a house trailer outside a trailer home park was no longer permitted. 117