Attachments

20241125-135017-f15-n-wzb minutes 8-19-20.pdf

20241125-135011-cc4-n-wzb laurel lane zoning ruling 11-19-24.pdf

A Warren couple has won its appeal in State Superior Court of a ruling made by the Warren Zoning Board in 2020, denying their request to be granted a special use permit (SUP) to construct a second home on their 24 Laurel Lane property.

Judge Daniel Procaccini made his ruling public on Tuesday, Nov. 19, over four years after the board voted 3-2 against the application of Daniel Karten and Marissa Joinson, the owners of the Laurel Lane location.

In his conclusion of the 46-page decision, Procaccini wrote, "After carefully reviewing the entire record, this Court finds that the Zoning Board’s denial of the special use permit was not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the record, that it was made upon unlawful procedure, and it constituted an abuse of discretion. The Court also finds that there is reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the record to support granting the special use permit.

"Accordingly, the decision of the Zoning Board is reversed, and the Zoning Board is ordered to grant Appellants’ special use permit application forthwith, plus costs. Counsel shall confer and submit to this Court forthwith an agreed upon form of order and judgment consistent with this Decision."

Whether or not the town responds to the ruling now falls to the Council. Reached for an observation Monday, Nov. 25, Warren Town Council President John Hanley said he could not comment specifically about the issue, nor had he yet been advised of the ruling.

Hanley, who is quite familiar with the subject matters in his full-time job as the Director of Zoning for the City of Pawtucket, said the next likely step would be for Town Solicitor Anthony DeSisto to provide the Council with a report on the case, which could take place as soon as the body's next scheduled meeting set for Tuesday, Dec. 10. After hearing from the solicitor, it would then be up to the Council to determine if it would accept the ruling or continue litigation.

To review, on August 19, 2020, Karten and Joinson approached the board with an application to receive a SUP to build a two-family home to meet the needs of the latter's elderly mother and sister. Laurel Lane is located in a R-10 designated zone where two-family units are allowed, but require the granting of the SUP by the zoning board.

The 3-2 vote was noteworthy because at the time per Warren Town Charter Sec. 32-21 about decisions of the zoning board, "the concurring vote of four (4) members of the board shall be required to decide in favor of an applicant in a matter involving a variance or special use permit." However, recent changes to Rhode Island General Law regarding housing and SUPs by the General Assembly have made that part of the action moot.

The meeting occurred during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and was conducted over the ZOOM online meeting application. The former zoning board chair Paul Attemann along with Andrew Ellis and Jason Rainone, respectively the current chair and vice chair of the body, voted affirmatively to grant the SUP. W. Barrett Holby, Jr. and Charles Thibaudeau, who like Ellis and Rainone remain on the board, were in the negative, meaning the application was denied.

According the meeting minutes, filed a few months later in February 2021, Thibaudeau was quoted as saying "Laurel Lane doesn’t have two-family dwellings there and it doesn’t seem to be compatible with the neighborhood."

Holby elaborated his position a bit more, saying he did not believe the SUP to "be compatible with the neighboring land uses... It seems to be setting a precedent, individually although the proposed looks like a single family, but the two-family doesn’t seem compatible with this street."

Holtby continued, questioning if the multi-family unit fit in the town's comprehensive plan. He also said the ZOOM format was not the optimal way to conduct the forum and urged the applicants to return before the body when it could meet in person.

In making the motion to approve, Ellis was quoted in the minutes as saying the multi-level structure was actually "compatible with the neighboring land use and that a two-family is a residential use, and the prevailing area is of residential character.” He also said "there are a mix of housing types within the general vicinity of this location, including other two- and multi-family dwellings.”

He continued with the motion, "The plans submitted show that the house is being developed in conformance with the setbacks and other requirements for this development,” and the application was “consistent with the prevailing pattern in its relationship to the street” because it “has its own driveway and access,” preserving “public safety.”

The motion concluded, "Property appeared “to be compatible with the comprehensive plan, and the plan encourages diversity in the housing stock and encourages multigenerational living arrangements within the town.”

In his recent ruling, Judge Procaccini also wrote “The two Board Members who denied the application (Thibaudeau and Holtby) acted arbitrarily and abused their discretion because their bases for denying the application were conclusory in nature and not supported by any facts.”

"All the reasoning for denying the application rested exclusively on conclusory personal opinions without articulating facts underlying these personal opinions, and, therefore, the Board Members abused their discretion by acting on conclusory opinions without any facts on record to support their opinions and denial of this special use permit," Procaccini added.