DocketNumber: C.A. No. 99-299
Judges: <bold><underline>THUNBERG, J.</underline></bold>
Filed Date: 5/5/2000
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
A total of four hearings on the application were held before the Board.4 During the hearings, the Board heard sworn testimony from several witnesses. Among them was Laurence S. Cutler, who testified, inter alia, that he believed the proposed museum would have an annual attendance of approximately 12,000 visitors. The Board also heard the testimony of John Grosvenor, an architect with a firm in Newport. Mr. Grosvenor testified that the plans for the museum were reviewed by Newport's Fire Marshal, and that the Marshal did not object to the proposed access for emergency vehicles. The Board also heard testimony from James Cronan, a civil engineering and traffic expert, who testified that the proposed museum would have a minimal effect on traffic in the surrounding area of the property.
The Board also heard the testimony of Blake Henderson, a civil engineer, who testified as to the inadequacy of the width of the entrances to the property for emergency vehicles. Mr. Henderson also testified that some of the parking spaces did not meet the width or length requirements set out in the Ordinance, and that the internal traffic flow on the property of the proposed museum would be problematic.
At the June 28, 1999 hearing, the Board, with three members voting to approve and two members voting to deny, denied the appellants' application for a special use permit.5 In denying the application, the Board found that the appellants did not demonstrate that the museum would be owned or maintained by an entity exempt from income taxation, as required by the Ordinance, and the proposed museum is not in "accord with the spirit or the intent of the drafters of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to museums or museum use." Decision at page 6. The Board also determined that the application must be denied bccause the Ordinance does not allow for a private residence and a museum to be housed in the same building. Decision at 6 and 7. The Board further determined that the appellants' proposal would, in contradiction to the policy of Newport's Comprehensive Plan, increase commercialization in the R-60 district. Decision at 7.
Furthermore, the Board determined that the appellant's application was defective on its face, because the actual owner of the property in question was not the applicant on the petition and no lessee was listed on the petition. Decision at 7. Finally, the Board found that the proposed access entrance to the driveway of the property was 11' 6" wide, which is less than the minimum width required by the Ordinance; that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the proposed parking would not destroy any old trees; and that the appellant failed to present credible evidence concerning anticipated attendance levels at the museum. Decision at 7.
On July 16, 1999, the appellants timely filed this appeal. On appeal, the appellants argue that the Decision was arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, the appellants argue that in the Decision, the Board ignored the tax-exempt status of The Woodbridge Foundation; that they misconstrued the definition of museum to exclude buildings that also house residential units; and that the parking plan submitted by the appellants did in fact conform to the standards set forth in the Ordinance
"(D) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board of review as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board of review or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are:
(1) In violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions;
(2) In excess of the authority granted to the zoning board of review by statute or ordinance;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) Affected by other error of law;
(5) Clearly enoneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of the whole record; or
(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."
When reviewing the decision of a Zoning Board of Review, this Court must examine the entire certified record to determine whether substantial evidence exists to support the finding of the Zoning Board of Review.6 Salve Regina College v. Zoning Bd.of Review,
Section 17.08.010 of the Ordinance defines museum as:
"a building having public significance by reason of its architecture or former use or occupancy or a building serving as a repository for a collection of natural, scientific or literary curiosities or objects of interest, or works of art, and arranged, intended and designed to be used by members of the public for viewing, with or without an admission charge, and which may include as an accessory use the sale of goods to the public as gifts or for their own use."
A zoning board is presumed to have knowledge concerning matters relating to the effective administration of its community's zoning ordinance. See Smith v. Zoning board of reviewof City of Warwick,
Here, the Ordinance does not state that a museum must be an entire building, or that it cannot share a building with a private residence. Furthermore, there is no clear implication that such a result was intended to be derived from the definition in the Ordinance. Our Supreme Court has held that the rules of statutory construction apply equally to the construction of an ordinance. Mongony v. Bevilacqua,
Section 17.100.230 of the Ordinance states in pertinent part:"Museums are allowed, subject to the following conditions: A. It must maintain its status as a museum exempt from income taxation under the internal Revenue Code[.]"
At the April 12, 1999 hearing, Laurence Cutler testified that in 1994 the Woodbridge Foundation, then known as the Cutler Foundation, received tax exempt status from the internal Revenue Service. Evidence of this status was presented at the hearing. No evidence was presented to show that The Woodbridge Foundation was not a tax-exempt entity. A review of the entire record by this Court clearly demonstrates that the Woodbridge Foundation did enjoy tax-exempt status.
The Board found, however, that the applicants "failed to demonstrate that they have (tax-exempt status]." Decision at 5. This finding appears to be based on testimony concerning the tax-exempt status of a separate entity, the American Civilization Foundation, formed by the Cutlers. However, the only entity the tax-exempt status which was relevant to this application was the Woodbridge Foundation, as it was the applicant before the Board.
It is the obligation of a Zoning Board of Review to decide cases before it so that the content of the decision meets minimal requirements. The Zoning Board's findings must be factual rather than conclusory, and the application of the legal principles must be something more than the recital of a litany. See Hopf v. Boardof Review of Newport,
Section 17.104.040 (D) of the Ordinance reads, in pertinent part:
"Access driveways from a street . . . shall be not less than twelve (12) feet in width for one-way traffic . . . Points of entrance and exit for driveways onto the street shall be located so as to minimize hazards to pedestrians and vehicular traffic."
Section 17.104.020 (4) sets out the amount of parking spaces required for a museum. Not fewer than 10 spaces and one additional space for each 300 square feet of gross square footage in excess of 2,000 gross square feet are required. Furthermore, 17.104.040 (A) provides that each off street parking space shall be a minimum of 20 feet long and a minimum of 9 feet wide.
Here, according to the undisputed evidence presented to the Board, a 12 foot entrance to the museum's driveway was provided for in the appellants' plans.7 Likewise, the testimony in the record reveals that 32 parking spaces, which conform, to the minimal size requirements have not only been provided, but constitute eight more than the 24 spaces required by the formula provided in Section 17.104.020(4).8
The finding of the Board concerning the parking plan was not based on the factual evidence in front of it, and the Ordinance section which applies to parking was not strictly construed by the Board; but rather, was applied to interfere with the beneficial use of the property at issue. See e.g. First NationalStores, 100 R.I. at 19, 210 A.2d at 659-60. Therefore, the Board's finding as to the parking plan was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of record.
Furthermore, the Board, as an additional basis for denying the application, found that the museum also would allow for an encroachment of commercialism into the R-60 district; and Mr. Cutler, could not accurately forecast the number of visitors to the proposed museum.
As stated earlier, a Zoning Board may not deny an application for a special use permit when such application meets the requirements of the community's zoning ordinance, unless the granting of the permit would be inimical to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the community. Salve ReginaCollege,
This Court further finds that concerns about Mr. Cutler's attendance forecasting are irrelevant. The expert testimony that the Board heard concerning traffic flow pointed to the conclusion that traffic would not be a problem. No substantial evidence of traffic problems was presented to the Board which could rationally lead the Board to conclude that such problems would occur. Mr. Culter's ability to accurately predict the actual number of visitors to the proposed museum does not constitute evidence of potential traffic problems in the neighborhood of the property in question.
Counsel shall prepare the appropriate order.
Mendonsa v. Corey , 495 A.2d 257 ( 1985 )
Mongony v. Bevilacqua , 432 A.2d 661 ( 1981 )
Hopf v. Board of Review of City of Newport , 102 R.I. 275 ( 1967 )
Caswell v. George Sherman Sand & Gravel Co. , 424 A.2d 646 ( 1981 )
DeStefano v. ZONING BD. OF REVIEW, ETC. , 405 A.2d 1167 ( 1979 )
Smith v. Zoning Board of Review of Warwick , 103 R.I. 328 ( 1968 )
Apostolou v. Genovesi , 120 R.I. 501 ( 1978 )
City of Providence v. O'NEILL , 445 A.2d 290 ( 1982 )
Town of Warren v. Frost , 111 R.I. 217 ( 1973 )
Nunes v. Town of Bristol , 102 R.I. 729 ( 1967 )
Bellevue Shopping Center Associates v. Chase , 574 A.2d 760 ( 1990 )
Salve Regina College v. Zoning Board of Review , 594 A.2d 878 ( 1991 )
City of Providence v. First National Stores, Inc. , 100 R.I. 14 ( 1965 )