DocketNumber: No. 2004-0112
Judges: NUGENT, J.
Filed Date: 11/21/2005
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On April 22, 2003, Nogueira replaced the fifth wheel trailer with a new park trailer.2 Subsequently, on November 26, 2003, Robert M. Walker Jr. (Walker), the Tiverton Building Official, issued a Violation Notice, alleging that Nogueira had abandoned his prior legal non-conforming use by replacing the trailer. The Violation Notice further cited Nogueira for expanding his legal non-conforming use without obtaining the proper permits and approvals. Nogueira appealed the Violation Notice to the Board.
On March 3, 2004, the Board conducted an advertised public hearing concerning Nogueira's appeal. At the hearing, Nogueira testified that the fifth wheel trailer measured 400 square feet and had been hooked to pre-existing water, electric, and sewer connections. (Tr. at 35, 55.) Nogueira claimed that the trailers were the same volume.3 According to Nogueira, when he swapped the trailers, the only changes to the property consisted of increasing the pre-existing deck by approximately 40 square feet in order to repair the stairs and the addition of a ground air-conditioning unit as opposed to the previous unit which attached to the top of the fifth wheel trailer. (Tr. at 48, 50.)
Although Walker admitted that he had not inspected the property prior to the removal of the fifth wheel trailer, he testified that the new park trailer was larger in size than the previous fifth wheel trailer. (Tr. at 23, 25, 26.) Walker also testified that utility attachments had been added to the property. (Tr. at 26.) Walker presented the Board with photographs of the new trailer, the deck, and the air-conditioning unit. Moreover, Richard Saunders, an abutting land owner residing at 65 Point View Drive, testified that two weeks prior to the extraction and replacement of the fifth wheel trailer, Nogueira expanded the concrete slab on which the trailer rested by digging a hole and adding concrete. (Tr. at 90.)
Based on the testimony and evidence before it, the Board issued a Decision on March 2, 2004 upholding the violation issuance. The Board found that Nogueira had replaced the fifth wheel trailer with a park trailer that was larger in size. Additionally, the Board discerned that the deck had been expanded, a ground located HVAC system installed, and the water and sewer connections modified. The Board concluded that the foregoing constituted an expansion of the non-conforming use requiring a use variance which had neither been sought nor granted.4
Nogueira filed a timely appeal with proper notice. On appeal, Nogueira argues that the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, Nogueira contends that the Board did not set forth sufficient factual findings in support of the written decision.
"(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."
This Court's review of a zoning board's decision is limited to an examination of "`the entire record to determine whether "substantial" evidence exists to support the board's findings.'" Mill Realty Assocs.v. Crowe,
"Generally, `the right to continue a nonconforming use does not . . . include the right to expand or intensify that use.'" Town of Richmond v.Wawaloam Reservation, Inc.,
"a. A legal nonconforming use of any parcel of land shall not be extended beyond that portion of the lot thus used, or otherwise expanded, unless a use variance is granted pursuant to the provisions and standards set forth in article XVII.
. . .
c. A legal nonconforming structure as to use shall not be added to or enlarged unless a use variance is granted pursuant to the provisions and standards set forth in article XVII.
. . .
e. A nonconforming building or structure shall not be moved in whole or in part unless such building or structure is made to conform to all of the regulations of the zoning district in which it is to be located."
Nonconforming uses tend to be "`detrimental to a zoning scheme, and the overriding public policy of zoning . . . aimed at their reasonable restriction and eventual elimination.'" RICO Corp. v. Town of Exeter,
Nogueira contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board's finding that the nonconforming use had been expanded. In support of his contention, Nogueira relies on Harmel Corporation v. Tiverton ZoningBd. of Review,
In the present case, it was undisputed that Nogueira replaced the pre-existing fifth wheel trailer with a new park trailer. Nogueira claimed that the trailers were equal in dimension — 400 square feet. However, his testimony was contradicted by the record evidence of the Certificate of Origin, which indicated that the park trailer measured 12 x 35 feet resulting in a volume of 420 square feet — an enlargement of 20 square feet. In fact, Mr. Saunders testified that Nogueira had extended the concrete slab on which the fifth wheel trailer rested two weeks prior to bringing in the park trailer. Furthermore, the Board was presented with testimony that Nogueira had added a ground air-conditioning unit and expanded the deck surrounding the trailer. Based on the evidence before it, the Board concluded that Nogueira had replaced the fifth wheel trailer with a larger trailer and utilized more land area than previously used. Accordingly, the Board had before it competent evidence to support the finding that Nogueira had expanded his nonconforming use.
Nogueira further argues that the Board's decision did not set forth sufficient factual findings. "`[A] municipal board, when acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, must set forth in its decision findings of fact and reasons for the actions taken.'" Kaveny v. Townof Cumberland Zoning Bd. of Review,
Counsel shall submit the appropriate judgment for entry.
"Any vehicle or similar structure designed and constructed so as to permit the occupancy thereof as a dwelling by one or more persons, and so designed and constructed that it was or may be mounted on wheels and used as a conveyance on a street or highway, propelled or drawn by its own or other motive power. Mobile home shall include previously portable vehicles or structures which have been placed on a permanent foundation, but shall not include a prefabricated home or structure."
(Town of Tiverton Code of Ordinances, Appendix A Zoning Art. II § 70.)
Bixler v. Pierson , 188 So. 2d 681 ( 1966 )
Town of West Greenwich v. A. Cardi Realty Associates , 786 A.2d 354 ( 2001 )
Kaveny v. Town of Cumberland Zoning Board of Review , 875 A.2d 1 ( 2005 )
DeStefano v. ZONING BD. OF REVIEW, ETC. , 405 A.2d 1167 ( 1979 )
Mill Realty Associates v. Crowe , 841 A.2d 668 ( 2004 )
Santoro v. ZONING BD. OF TOWN OF WARREN , 171 A.2d 75 ( 1961 )
Harmel Corp. v. Members of the Zoning Board of Review , 603 A.2d 303 ( 1992 )
Sciacca v. Caruso , 769 A.2d 578 ( 2001 )
Rico Corp. v. Town of Exeter , 787 A.2d 1136 ( 2001 )
Bernuth v. Zoning Board of Review , 770 A.2d 396 ( 2001 )
Town of Richmond v. Wawaloam Reservation, Inc. , 850 A.2d 924 ( 2004 )