 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thompson v. Carlson12/14/2005
pursue the instant appeal.
Since Thompson and Treanor are board members of an association that is statutorily required to consist only of unit owners, they would have individual standing as property owners in that development even though they did not so allege in their complaint. Furthermore, even if they do not own property at Corliss Landing, Thompson may have a separate and distinct right to pursue this appeal in his individual capacity because the complaint asserted that he owns a parcel of land within two hundred feet of the Hot Club.
As at least one of the parties has standing, this Court need not address whether Fox Point also has standing to pursue the appeal. This Court will now address the merits of the appeal.
Analysis
The Appellants contend that that the Decision was arbitrary, capricious and characterized by an abuse of discretion because it failed to address various inconsistencies and contradictions in both the record and the Application, and because the Zoning Board did not clarify the record regarding these issues. They further assert that the Zoning Board acted in excess of its authority by (a) failing to comply with the Providence Zoning Ordinance with respect to the issuance of a special use permit; (b) failing to comply with additional conditions for granting a special use permit in a waterfront zone; and, (c) improperly enlarging an existing non-conforming use. The Appellants also maintain that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the Zoning Board's Decision.
A. The Application and Notice
The Appellants assert that the Application contained various inconsistencies and contradictions. To support this assertion, the Appellants note that the Application contained dimensional discrepancies for the proposed construction, that it sought a use variance rather than a special use permit, and that it failed to indicate that there were outstanding violations concerning the property. The Appellants contend that they brought these issues to the Zoning Board's attention, but that the Zoning Board failed to either clarify the record or address these issues in its Decision. Accordingly, the Appellants maintain that that the Decision was arbitrary, capricious and characterized by an abuse of discretion. This assertion appears to be in the nature of a challenge to the notice given to the Appellants.
Section 45-24-18 requires a zoning board of review to give public notice and written notice to all parties in interest. Sec. 45-24-18; see also Ryan v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of New Shoreham, 656 A.2d 612, 615 (R.I. 1995). Compliance with the mandate of ยง 45-24-18 "is a prerequisite to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the zoning board of review." Ryan, 656 A.2d at 615; see also Zeilstra v. Barrington Zoning Bd. of Review, 417 A.2d 303, 307 (R.I. 1980). As previously stated, " erely to advise of the date, time, and place of a proposed meeting without more, however, is a mere gesture, and will be of little significance unless in addition some advice is given of the purpose for which the meeting has been called." Carroll v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Providence, 104 R.I. 676, 679, 248 A.2d 321, 323 (1968).
In order to meet that due process notice requirement, "the rule has developed that the notice, if it is to be adequate and sufficient, must in addition advise concerning the precise character of the relief sought and the specific property for which that relief is sought." Id.; see also Ryan, 656 A.2d at 615 ("This jurisdictional requirement serves to afford those having an interest an opportunity to present facts that might shed light on the issue before the board."); Zeilstra, 41
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rhode Island Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|