Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2002

Home

March 25, 2002 -- Page ? Cease-and-Desist Orders -- Property owner asks court to stop hotel construction Zoning officer had issued cease-and-desist order RHODE ISLAND (1/18/02) --The city of Newport ~anted permits ha 2000 and 2001 for construction on the Chanler Hotel. After the permits were issued, Cohen, a property owner, appealed the approval to the zoning board, the issu- ance of permits, and the failure to obtain certain miscellaneous permits. The zoning officer, in r. esponse to the .appeal, issued a cease-and-desist order to the hotel during the appeal. The zoning officer relied upon a state law that stated all proceedings had to be stayed pending appeals to the zoning board. Cohen' complained hotel construction continued despite the order. Cohen asked the zoning officer and the city solicitor tO take action, but they replied by. claiming the continued construction was not related to the appeal. Presumably, this meant the construction occurred within the exterior wails Of the building. However, Cohen claimed the construction was occurring on the exterior of the building, violating the cease-and-desist order. Cohen asked the court to force the city to enforce the cease-and-desist or- der against the hotel. This request was called a "writ of mandamus." DECISION: Request denied. The court did not issue a write of' mandamus, so the city did not have to take action to enforce the cease-and-desist order. The court could only'issue a writ of mandamus compell~ng the town to take action if the town official had abused his discretion. Cohen needed a clear right to the relief he sought the zoning official to perform. In this type of case, the court didn't speculate whether the facts Cohen alleged were ta-ue because there were no supporting records or documentation available. Under state law, only a municipality, through the town solicitor, could sue to enforce local zoning ordinances. However, where the SolScitor had this dis- cretion, the court could not force it to sue the hotel to enforce the order. Here, there were inadequate facts to show the town solicitor had abused his discretion in failing to sue to enforce the cease-and-desist order. Here, the offi- cials checked on the construction and decided the action did not violate the cease-and-desist order. No facts m th,e record showed they failed to exercise their discretion in a reasonable manner. Citation: Cohen v. Nicholson, &tperior Court Of Rhode [xland, No. NC01-0554 (2002). see also: Adler v. Lincoln Housing Authority, 623 A.2d 20 (]993). see also: Buckley v. Affieck,' 493 A.2d 828 (J985). Rezoning ~ County petitions court to enforce regulations against resident Resident ctaims health problems create need dbr extension MISSISSIPPI (02/12/02) ~ In March 1999, DeSoto County Code Enforce- ment Officer Baldwin wrote Madison concerning a complain~ about junk 241