The Tiverton Yacht Club opened a clubhouse on its current location in 1956, however, when the town adopted a zoning code in 1964, the clubhouse became a legal nonconforming use in a residential district. Adjacent to this lot, the Yacht Club owned another parcel that it has used since 1987 solely as a marina. In 2003, the clubhouse burned down, and three years later the Yacht Club sought to rebuild and acquired a building permit. The plaintiffs brought this action on the basis that rebuilding would be an expansion of a nonconforming use.
In support of their contention that the new structure would be an expansion or intensification of the nonconforming use, the plaintiffs pointed to the footprint of the new structure, its septic capacity, the additions of a interior space, a marina and a swimming pool, increasing the size of the kitchen, increasing parking and function capacity, and changing from seasonal to year round use. After a trial, the lower court determined that increasing to year round use was impermissible, that the “increased ‘linear extent of the building’ represented ‘an illegal structure,’” and that the addition of parking was an impermissible expansion. As a result, the trial court ruled that the Yacht Club could not operate year round and that the new structure must be confined to the original footprint. Additionally, after a later hearing, the trial court determined that since there was no marina in existence during the adoption of the 1964 ordinance, the marina was prohibited as it was an illegal expansion of a non-conforming use.
Both parties appealed. The plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees and the Yacht Club sought to have the prior order stayed regarding the marina. This court granted the Yacht Club’s motion to stay the determination of the lower court. Shortly thereafter, the lower court granted declaratory and injunctive relief for the plaintiffs. Following the grant of declaratory and injunctive relief, the Yacht Club appealed to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
The Yacht club contended that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the Tiverton Zoning Board had exclusive jurisdiction in this zoning enforcement matter. Additionally, the Yacht Club asserted that the plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies, that the trial court relied on the wrong ordinance and also erred because the marina was allowed by right, and lastly that that the new structure would not be an unlawful expansion of a non-conforming use.
The court concluded that the appeals concerning the non-conforming uses on the clubhouse property are moot. In October 2010, the Tiverton Zoning Board amended the zoning ordinance by placing a floating zone designated as Waterfront-Related on the clubhouse property. Since the clubhouse was now permitted as a right, the questions concerning non-conforming uses on the property are moot.
Next, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island addressed whether the Yacht Club could operate a marina on its waterfront lot. The court stated that the lot was not affected by the zoning amendment, thus this claim was not rendered moot. Additionally, the court noted that the zoning ordinance does permit a marina on the waterfront parcel and that the trial court erred when it found that the marina and the clubhouse were operating in tandem and thus the use of a marina was an extension of the nonconforming use of the clubhouse. The Supreme Court determined that the two parcels are separate and independently transferable tracts of land, and that the restrictions on one of these tracts could not be used to regulate the other. As such, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s ruling that a marina could not be located on the waterfront lot.
Campbell v. Tiverton Zoning Board, 2011 WL 1168315 (R.I., 3/25/2011)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.ri.gov/supreme/pdf-files/10-45.pdf
