Concerned about court’s variance decision

To the editor:

I am very concerned about the article on page 5 of the Warren Times. My husband and I have applied for a variance

on this construction , but it is not and never was for a 16×30 foot garage, but for a 16×20 foot garage. We have 10 feet on the side yards as in R-10 zoning. There is rightfully no parking either side of Laurel Lane because of the LPIA playground and children walking to the beach, and we are having to park on our front lawn which is wrecking the grass.

What information did the court receive? From whom did the Warren Times receive this inaccurate information? Is this what the court heard when it remanded the case back to the town? The reason we had to apply for a variance was that the garage would cover more of the lot than is in the ordinance. Most properties in this area exceed the lot coverage. There will be no additional run-off from this garage.

The granting of this variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of the comprehensive plan on which the ordinance is based. Did the Court and the Warren Times receive the zoning board’s File#11-4 in which this all was explained by the zoning board? Why has this taken two years? Something is amiss!

Ann Morrill

48 Laurel Lane

Note: The information cited in last week’s Warren Times article was taken directly from a decision filed by the Rhode Island Superior Court on June 17, which has been published and is available on the Superior Court website. To read the court’s decision, click here.

 

Authors

One Comment;

Top