Opinion ID: 2107895
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: The Decks, Stairs, and Courtyards

Text: The board found that the implementation of the hotel's plans would decrease the number of rooms in the hotel and made the nonconforming use less intense. The board then concluded that the proposed renovations, including the decks, stairs, and courtyards, did not otherwise expand the nonconforming use or amount to a change of use. The trial justice found that the board erred because Cliff Walk enlarged the hotel and extended the building containing the nonconforming use in violation of the ordinance. We disagree. There is no hard and fast rule to determine when an improvement amounts to an extension of a nonconforming use or a change in use. See Santoro v. Zoning Board of Review of Warren, 93 R.I. 68, 72, 171 A.2d 75, 77 (1961). Each case must be considered and determined on its own facts. Id. An extension, expansion, or enlargement usually involves a significant physical change in the structure in which the nonconforming use is being carried on. 4 Edward H. Ziegler, Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning, § 73:16, at 73-75 (Thomson/West 2007). Also, a physical expansion into land not previously used for the nonconformity generally constitutes an extension of a nonconforming use. See id. at 73-74. An extension typically involves construction of a new building, an addition to a building, an extension in the area devoted to the use, or a significant physical change in the structure that accommodates the nonconforming use. See id. First, there is utterly no evidence in the record that would justify a conclusion that Cliff Walk moved the building or that the decks, stairs, or courtyards moved or extended the hotel use to another part of the land or building not previously designed for such use at the time the use became nonconforming. See § 17.72.030B. Although Cohen testified before the board that the footprint of the building had increased, he also admitted that his calculations did not take into consideration the square footage of the original decking that was attached to the building. Shufelt testified that Cliff Walk tore down the old and decrepit decking and replaced it. Although he reconfigured the design to some extent, decreasing the dimensions of the decks in some places and enlarging them in other places, he testified that the new decks were about the same size overall as the old decks. Furthermore, when he made his calculations, Cohen included the walled courtyards, but the zoning officer testified that the walls and courtyards did not violate any zoning ordinances and did not require building permits. Therefore, it is apparent that there is no evidence in the record that the improvements extended the use of the hotel or moved the building by increasing the hotel's footprint. Furthermore, the garden and courtyard walls did not amount to significant physical changes in the structure, nor did they expand the area for hotel use, nor are the walls considered part of the building. The ordinance defines a building as any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. Section 17.08.010. The record reveals that the courtyard walls do not support or shelter any use or occupancy. The walls Cliff Walk proposed are garden walls; they are not structural walls. The record reveals that the courtyards are not enclosed by a roof; rather, they are open-aired and primarily function to create privacy. Cliff Walk's construction of stairways to the guest rooms also did not involve significant physical changes to the structure or operate to extend the area that accommodated the hotel use. The zoning officer testified that the stairs did not violate the zoning ordinances, and the record also reveals that the stairs did not violate the setback requirements. There is no evidence in the record that the addition of the individual sets of stairs extended the use of the facility as a hotel. Compare Crawford v. Building Inspector of Barnstable, 356 Mass. 174, 248 N.E.2d 488, 490 (1969) (holding enclosure of small ten-foot-by-two-foot landing-porch area to repair rotting wood did not enlarge the nonconforming use), with Grundlehner v. Dangler, 29 N.J. 256, 148 A.2d 806, 808, 810-11 (1959) (holding addition of 260-square foot area to create an office, elevator, stairway, and smoking room was an enlargement of a nonconforming use that could not be viewed as insubstantial). Second, it is also clear from the record that the board was justified in its conclusion that the decking, stairs, and courtyards did not change the use of the land or the use of the structure from that of a hotel. See § 17.72.030C. Our case law has established that [a] change of use occurs when the proposed use is `substantially different from the nonconforming use to which the premises were previously put   .' Harmel Corp. v. Members of the Zoning Board of Review of Tiverton, 603 A.2d 303, 305 (R.I.1992) (quoting Jones v. Rommell, 521 A.2d 543, 545 (R.I.1987)). Minor repairs, changes or alterations that do not substantially change the nature of the use or expand the area of the use are unlikely to be held unlawful. 4 Ziegler, § 73:16 at 73-75. Ordinarily a mere increase in the amount of business done in pursuance of a nonconforming use, or a change in the equipment used, does not constitute a change of the use itself. Santoro, 93 R.I. at 71, 171 A.2d at 77 (quoting Salerni v. Scheuy, 140 Conn. 566, 102 A.2d 528, 530 (1954)). The use of the structure is not substantially different; it is still a hotel, it has not increased the number of rooms, it has not changed the types of services it provides, the structure was not replaced, there is no evidence of increased business or patronage, and there is no evidence that it has changed its effect on the neighborhood. See Souza v. Zoning Board of Review of Warren, 104 R.I. 697, 699, 248 A.2d 325, 327 (1968) (holding change from prior nonconforming use of woodworking, plumbing, and heating shop to an auto body shop was substantially different); Santoro, 93 R.I. at 72, 171 A.2d at 77 (upholding board's finding that replacing wooden grocery store and gas station with a new building and adding additional gasoline pumps, all of which would mean additional business and increased traffic and noise, would together constitute a change of the nonconforming use); see also Cape Resort Hotels, Inc. v. Alcoholic Licensing Board of Falmouth, 385 Mass. 205, 431 N.E.2d 213, 219-20 (1982) (holding conversion of a nonconforming resort hotel into a large entertainment complex with pub, show lounge, and disco was a change in use). The board's findings that the courtyards, decks, and stairs did not expand or change the use of the property as a transient guest facility were not clearly erroneous or affected by any error of law. We conclude, therefore, that the trial justice erred when she found that these improvements violated § 17.72.030 B. and C.