DocketNumber: C.A. No. NC 07-0416
Judges: CLIFTON, J.
Filed Date: 5/4/2009
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
The original size of the property was 2999.24 sq. ft., 60' in depth and 50' wide. Because this lot existed prior to the issuance of the zoning ordinance, the lot was deemed a preexisting legal nonconforming lot of record. Presently on the property, there exists an unoccupied single-family dwelling that was converted from a garage.
In 2005, Arthur wanted to build a single-family home on her property. She obtained advice that it was not practical to refurbish the current structure on her property and she should tear that down to build a new single-family home. (Tr. February 27, 2007, at 23-24.) When Arthur created the dimensions of the new one-family home, it was clear that she was not going to meet the setback requirements for the new structure. Consequently, in April of 2005, she applied for a variance; however, Arthur encountered some disapproval from neighbors, specifically the Appellants, and subsequently withdrew her application. Arthur instead purchased 998.47 sq. ft. of abutting land from Beverly Lange, her neighbor to her west. With the addition of this strip of land, Arthur applied for an administrative subdivision to formally add the strip to her parcel prior to her seeking a building permit.
The Town Planner granted the administrative subdivision on October 31, 2005. The approval of the administrative subdivision was recorded and posted by the Town, and no appeal was taken. Arthur then applied for a building permit to erect a single-family home on the parcel which now met all setback requirements. On December 19, 2006, Arthur was granted the building permit to demolish the exiting structure on her property and to build a new single-family dwelling.
The Appellants appealed the grant of the building permit to the Board. The Appellants live at 2 Baldwin Court (Assessor's Plat 9, Lot 453). The Appellant's *Page 3 property abuts the Arthur property to the north and comprises the southwestern corner of the intersection of Baldwin Court and High Street.
The Board held two hearings: one on February 27, 2007, and one on June 26, 2007. At the June hearing, only four of the five members of the Board who were present at the February meeting were in attendance. The Board and both parties agreed to restart the hearing and hear all arguments anew. (Tr. June 26, 2007 at 4-8.) At the hearings, Appellants raised two issues. One issue was the ongoing border dispute between Arthur and Appellants, which the Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear.1 The second issue the Appellants raised was that the legal nonconforming lot of record is now no longer a preexisting legal nonconforming lot. They claim the administrative subdivision has now made the lot a different lot than the lot of record that existed on the effective date of the zoning ordinance. Consequently, the Appellants maintain, Arthur should not have been granted the building permit because her lot was still below the 8000 sq. ft. minimum necessary to build a single-family home. The Appellants argued that Arthur should therefore have to apply for a dimensional variance. Id at 10-12.
At the hearing, Arthur argued that the lot was the same lot, and this was an instance of merger under Jamestown Code § 82-709. She also argued that it would be against public policy to penalize someone for trying to obtain more land to make the nonconforming lot more in conformity with the ordinance. Li at 29-31.
The Board denied the appeal orally at the June hearing and followed with a written decision that was filed on August 1, 2007. The Board concluded that the strip of *Page 4
land added to the Arthur parcel did not create a new lot. The Board denied the Appellant's appeal, concluding that this lot was a preexisting legal nonconforming lot of record. The Appellants filed their complaint August 14, 2007, and amended the complaint joining the Zoning Board of Review. Notice was given pursuant to §
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 erroneous 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.
This Court "must examine the entire record to determine whether `substantial' evidence exists to support the board's findings."Salve Regina College v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Newport,
When the Court conducts its review of the zoning board, the trial justice "may `not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board of review as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.'"Curran v. Community Housing Corp.,
The Court is also mindful of the standard of review that the zoning board of review is required to follow when reviewing a decision of a building official. When reviewing the decision of a building official, the zoning board of review may "reverse or affirm wholly or partly and may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make any orders, requirements, decisions, or determinations that ought to be made, and to that end has the powers of the officer from whom the appeal was taken. . . ." Section
Arthur argues that this lot does not meet the definition of a new lot, but instead, it has simply merged two parcels of land.2 Arthur argues that adding land to a substandard lot comports with public policy to bring the preexisting nonconforming lot closer to conformance with the ordinance.
The Court must determine whether the Board based its decision on `"substantial evidence' to deny the appeal of the building official's permit. With respect to the amount of discretion that the building inspector possesses, [i]t is well settled in this state that building inspectors are without authority to do anything in the course of issuing permits for the erection of structures other than to determine that the proposed construction conforms precisely to the terms of the pertinent provisions of the zoning ordinance." Arc-Lan Co. v. Zoning Bd of Reviewof North Providence.
This Court, after examining the record as a whole, finds that the Board relied on substantial evidence when making its decision to deny the appeal. Neither side presented to the Board decisional case law from Rhode Island that was directly on point. Both sides argued at the hearing and provided memos to the Board.
The Appellants relied upon the Rathkopf3 zoning treatise and several cases from other jurisdictions. In one case, State ex rel. LaVoie v. Building Commissioner of the Town of Trumbull,
Appellants further generally relied on Duffy v. East Greenwich TownCouncil
At the hearing, Arthur noted that the Parks and La Voie cases, cited by Appellants, concerned a complex subdivision which existed before a zoning ordinance passed. Further, Arthur noted that after the ordinance was passed, the landowner submitted plans for nonconforming lots. Thus, Arthur argued, the present case is very different from those relied on by Appellants since this case has to do with one lot of *Page 9
record which Arthur increased only in size. (Tr. June 26, 2007 at 32-33.) Additionally, Arthur argued that the Duffy case concerned a use variance, not a dimensional variance. Arthur agreed that a nonconforming use is looked upon as a thorn in Rhode Island, while demonstrating that the instant case does not concern a nonconforming use but rather a substandard lot. Id at 33. Arthur lastly argued Rhode Island case law existed for the proposition that if an ordinance is to deprive a landowner of his or her property rights, then the ordinance must be clear as to what effect will occur. Id at 31; see Earl v. Zoning Boardof Review of City of Warwick,
Before deciding, the Board received advice from the Town Solicitor. The Town Solicitor expressed the opinion that §
Mr. Ginnerty, Chairman of the Board, moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the strip of land added to the Arthur lot was not a separate deeded lot but a section of land belonging to a neighbor. He relied on Jamestown Code 982.103(65) and offered his view that the strip of land did not change the nature of the Arthur property from a preexisting nonconforming lot. Id. at 44. Mr. Wagner, another Board member, seconded the motion and some discussion ensued, led by Mr. Boren, the only Board member who did not vote to deny the appeal. Id. at 44-45.
After the oral decision at the hearing, the Board also sent out a written decision. In its written decision, the Board quoted Jamestown Code § 982.103 (65) for the definition of a lot. Based on this definition and what was presented at hearing and in the memos, the Board concluded that the administrative subdivision that added the 997 sq. ft. to the Arthur lot did not change the nature of the Arthur lot from a legal nonconforming lot, and therefore, the decision of the building inspector granting the building permit was upheld. (Admin. Decision June 27, 2007 at 1-2.)
[t]he basic development unit for determination of lot area, depth, and other dimensional regulations; or [a] parcel of land whose boundaries have been established by some legal instrument such as a recorded deed or recorded map and which is recognized as a separate legal entity for purposes of transfer of title." Jamestown Code § 82-103(65).
This definition is identical to that of Rhode Island General Laws §
A building, structure, or parcel of land, or use thereof, lawfully existing at the time of adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance and not in conformity with the provisions of that ordinance or amendment. Nonconformance is of only two (2) types:
. . .
(i) Nonconforming by dimension; a building, structure or parcel of land not in compliance with the dimensional regulations of the zoning ordinance. Dimensional regulations include all regulations of the zoning ordinance, other than those pertaining to permitted uses. A building or structure containing more dwelling units than are permitted by the use regulations of a zoning ordinance is nonconforming by use; a building or structure containing a permitted number of dwelling units by the use regulations of the zoning ordinance, but not meeting the lot area per dwelling unit regulations, is nonconforming by dimension. Section
45-24-31 (49)(ii).
The definitions of nonconformance and nonconforming by dimension in the Jamestown Zoning Ordinance are substantially identical to that of the above definitions. Jamestown Code § 82-103(86)(b). A substandard lot of record is defined as "Any lot lawfully existing at the time of adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance and not in conformance with the dimensional and/or area provisions of that ordinance." Section
Any city or town adopting or amending a zoning ordinance under this chapter shall regulate the use or uses of any single substandard lot of record or contiguous lots of record at the effective date of adoption or amendment of the *Page 12 zoning ordinance notwithstanding the failure of that lot or those lots to meet the dimensional and/or quantitative requirements, and/or road frontage or other access requirements, applicable in the district as stated in the ordinance. Provisions may be made for the merger of contiguous unimproved, or improved and unimproved, substandard lots of record in the same ownership to create dimensionally conforming lots or to reduce the extent of dimensional nonconformance. The ordinance shall specify the standards, on a district by district basis, which determine the mergers. The standards include, but are not limited to, the availability of infrastructure, the character of the neighborhood, and the consistency with the comprehensive plan.
Courts allow for and encourage merger of contiguous lots of common ownership, especially when specifically provided for in the ordinance.See Brum v. Conley,
"If the language of a zoning ordinance is clear and certain, there is nothing left for interpretation and the ordinance must be interpreted literally." Mongony v. Bevilacqua, 423 A.2d 661 at 663. However, if there is an ambiguity in the ordinance or it lacks clarity, the law states, "where doubt exists as to the legislative intention, the ordinance should be interpreted in favor of the property owner."Earl v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Warwick,
Arthur argued that there was never a border dispute. Arthur argued the original survey of her land placed the border where it currently is located, and then the second surveyor erroneously read the deed, and measured incorrectly, moving the border three feet. That survey is the survey that Arthur submitted when she applied for the variance, before she added the strip of land. Arthur notes that when she applied for the addition of the strip of land and the administrative subdivision, she hired a different surveyor who read the deed correctly and moved the border back three feet to its original line. The survey line matched up with old concrete fence posts as well. Arthur submitted the *Page 14 warranty deed of Appellants which clearly states the measurements of their land in metes and bounds and confirms that the border should be where the first and third surveyor put the border. (Warranty Deed at 1.)
The Board concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear a border dispute. It allowed each side to make arguments and even questioned the Appellants as to whether they had an independent surveyor who would attest to the Appellant's location of the border, which they did not have. (Tr. June 26, 2007 at 17, 20.) The Board also suggested that one remedy available to the Appellants was to move for an injunction in Superior Court if they wished to entertain a border dispute. Id at 18. The Board tried to have the parties consent that there was a genuine dispute, but Arthur argued it was a "manufactured boundary dispute." Id at 22. Because the Board determined that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the border dispute, it did not entertain witness testimony as to whether there was a genuine dispute. Id at 28.
In evidence before the Board was the warranty deed of Appellants confirming the border determined by the first and third surveyors, and the administrative subdivision plan of 2005. The burden to present evidence falls on the moving party. The Appellants had no expert or independent survey ready to present to the Board or submit into evidence disputing the border evidenced by deed and surveyors.
Furthermore, Rhode Island law has made clear that a zoning board only has jurisdiction to hear and decide those enumerated matters which it has been explicitly given the power to decide. Rico Corp. v. Town ofExeter et al.,
Zoning boards are statutory bodies. Their powers are legislatively delineated. They are empowered to hear *Page 15 appeals from the determination of administrative officers made in the enforcement of zoning laws and in addition they may authorize deviations from the comprehensive plan by granting exemptions to or variations in the application of the terms of the local zoning ordinances. * * * Notwithstanding that the enabling legislation does not permit nor the ordinance authorize any additional jurisdiction. . . . Rico,
787 A.2d at 1144 (quoting Olean v. Zoning Board of Review of Lincoln,101 R.I. 50 ,52 ,220 A.2d 177 ,178 (1966)).
The zoning board of review's powers are clearly delineated in §
Pursuant to G.L. 1956 §
State Ex Rel. Lavoie v. Building Commission , 135 Conn. 415 ( 1948 )
Parks v. BOARD OF CTY. COM'RS OF TILLAMOOK CTY. , 11 Or. App. 177 ( 1972 )
Caswell v. George Sherman Sand & Gravel Co. , 424 A.2d 646 ( 1981 )
Ajootian v. Zoning Board of Review , 85 R.I. 441 ( 1957 )
Curran v. Church Community Housing Corp. , 672 A.2d 453 ( 1996 )
Narragansett Wire Co. v. Norberg , 118 R.I. 596 ( 1977 )
Earle v. Zoning Board of Review , 96 R.I. 321 ( 1963 )
Brum v. Conley , 572 A.2d 1332 ( 1990 )
Monforte v. Zoning Bd. of Review of East Providence , 93 R.I. 447 ( 1962 )
Apostolou v. Genovesi , 120 R.I. 501 ( 1978 )
Bunch v. Board of Review, Rhode Island Department of ... , 690 A.2d 335 ( 1997 )
Duffy v. Milder , 896 A.2d 27 ( 2006 )
Salve Regina College v. Zoning Board of Review , 594 A.2d 878 ( 1991 )
Rico Corp. v. Town of Exeter , 787 A.2d 1136 ( 2001 )
Olean v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF TOWN OF LINCOLN , 220 A.2d 177 ( 1966 )
Bellevue Shopping Center Associates v. Chase , 574 A.2d 760 ( 1990 )