DocketNumber: KC 92-1117
Judges: <underline>SILVERSTEIN, J.</underline>
Filed Date: 1/11/1996
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
In February of 1991, the Board of Review granted the appellee a special exception for the entire subject parcel. This special exception, according to Article IX, § 924 of the Coventry Zoning Ordinance, allowed the appellee to establish a plan of the land she owned, laying out streets and lots as to the leased portion of the land. The special exception also provided in pertinent part:
The applicants shall apply to the Coventry Zoning Board in the future as to each individual lot on this survey to enable the Zoning Board to further determine whether or not a special exception shall be granted by them as to each individual lot pursuant to the terms and conditions of Article 9, Section 924 of the Coventry Zoning Ordinance. (Decision of the Zoning Board of Review February 12, 1991).
No appeal of this decision was taken. The appellee thereafter established a plan of the land. After spending approximately $100,000 on the engineering, water design, and septic design of the various lots, she applied for a special exception for each lot as was directed in the February, 1991 decision of the Zoning Board of Review. (Record at 360).
Specifically, in each application the appellee requested relief in accordance with Article IX, Section 924 of the Coventry Zoning Ordinance that would allow her to remodel and improve an existing seasonal home located on leased land for use as a year-round unit. The pertinent part of the ordinance that allows for special exceptions states the following:
No new housing units shall be constructed on leased land. Seasonal units shall not be converted to year-round units; year-round units shall not be enlarged or added onto and no accessory structures shall be built unless they adhere to all the requirements of this section and receive a special exception from the board. Structures damaged by fire must adhere to the requirements of Article 8, nonconforming uses. Article 9, § 924 (a) (1) of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Coventry.
On September 2, 1992, at a properly advertised, scheduled hearing on said applications, the Coventry Zoning Board of Review heard testimony concerning the issue of the extent of what the appellee's described as "remodelling." In determining whether the appellee's plans to remodel and add on to certain specified homes in order to make them year round were so extensive as to fall into the category of "new construction" rather than "remodelling," the board heard testimony from Kirk Andrews, a licensed engineer in the State of Rhode Island. He testified that one of the subject foundations is an existing one which is currently one-hundred and thirty feet from the water. (Record at 360). The Board also heard testimony from Betty Jane Owen, who testified that her father collected rent on the already existing unit for about 30 years indicating that the subject structure has been a rental unit. (Record at 362).
Several people also testified in opposition to the applications for the special exceptions. Gail Groves, a resident of Coventry, asked if the buildings on lot 7 were sheds that were never lived in, although she conceded in her question that she may have been wrong in her assumption. (Record at 361). When Linda Masiello voiced her concern about the description of two structure as cabins, Mr. Robert Grove, a member of the Board of Review addressed her concern by agreeing that the Board needed to look at the two structures in question. (Record at 363).
Following the hearing, the Board, upon its determination that the proposed use was remodelling, voted four to one to approve each of the requests for special exceptions with certain stipulations in each approved application. The decisions issued on October 23, 1992, made findings that each application provided for a remodeled structure that will be in general compatibility with the other homes in the area and is compatible with the master plan of the Town of Coventry. Appellants filed a timely appeal to this Court asserting that the Board's decisions were arbitrary and capricious as their conclusions were not based upon substantial evidence to support the granting of the special exceptions. The appellants further contend that the Board made insufficient findings of fact to support its decisions to grant the special exceptions.
45-24-69 . Appeals to Superior Court(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 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.
When reviewing a decision of a zoning board, a Justice of the Superior Court may not substitute his or her judgment for that of the zoning board if he or she conscientiously finds that the board's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Apostolouv. Genovesi,
A special exception is relief expressly allowed by the applicable zoning ordinance that is similar in nature to a deviation in that it generally pertains to area and setback requirements. Gara Realty Inc., v. the Zoning Board of Review ofthe Town of South Kingston,
The appellants contend that the appellee did not present any substantial evidence with respect to the fact that the proposed use would be in harmony with the character of the neighborhood; however, the record reveals otherwise. In finding that the subject proposals will enhance existing structures and will be in general compatibility with the other homes in the area, as well as compatible with the Master Plan of the town of Coventry, the Board relied on the following information. Each approved application provided for a new or improved septic system to conform with state regulations. (See Proposed Site Alterations for Assessor' Plat 17, Lot 59 Recorded Lot 6; Proposed Site Alterations for Assessor's Plat 17, Lot 61 Recorded Lot 8). Each application also provided for public water service. (See Proposed Site Alterations for Assessor's Plat 17, Lot 59, Recorded Lot 6; Proposed Site Alterations for Assessor's Plat 17, Lot 61, Recorded Lot 8). Furthermore, our Supreme Court has stated that information in the application and on the plot plans constitutes competent evidence from which a zoning board could make a decision. Gardiner v. Zoning Board of Review,
Appellants further contend that the Board made insufficient findings of fact to support its decisions to grant the special exceptions. However, in each decision granting a special exception pursuant to Article IX, section 924 of the Coventry Zoning Ordinances the Board made specific findings concerning the proposed use that demonstrate that the proposed use would not have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, welfare and morals. Toohey v. Kilday,
After reviewing the entire record, this Court finds that there is substantial, reliable, and probative evidence supporting the Board's decisions. Accordingly, the October 23, 1992 decisions of the Coventry Zoning Board of Review are hereby affirmed.
Counsel shall submit the appropriate order for entry.
Northeastern Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review of New Shoreham , 534 A.2d 603 ( 1987 )
Caswell v. George Sherman Sand & Gravel Co. , 424 A.2d 646 ( 1981 )
Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 ( 1971 )
Richards v. ZONING BOARD OF PROVIDENCE , 100 R.I. 212 ( 1965 )
Gara Realty, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Review , 523 A.2d 855 ( 1987 )
R.J.E.P. Associates v. Hellewell , 560 A.2d 353 ( 1989 )
Apostolou v. Genovesi , 120 R.I. 501 ( 1978 )
Gardiner v. Zoning Board of Review , 101 R.I. 681 ( 1967 )