July 19, 2025

Court sides with Zoning decision on Lexus dealership

The Superior Court has upheld the Zoning board’s decision to grant Atkins Kroll Saipan two conditional use permits for the construction of its Toyota/Lexus dealership in Puerto Rico, thereby denying Anaks Ocean View Hill Homeowners Association’s petition for judicial review.

Superior Court Judge pro tem David Wisemen affirmed Monday the Zoning board’s decision to grant AK two conditional use permits and denied the relief the Anaks homeowners’ association had sought in its petition for judicial review.

Wiseman stated in his order that Anaks’ concern that the Zoning board failed to explain its findings in writing is misguided and does not warrant the setting aside of the conditional use permits

“First, Anaks was not entitled to formal findings of fact and conclusions of law because it was not entitled to a plenary contested case hearing. Second, the conditional use permits do, in fact, incorporate the Zoning administrator’s memo, which contains findings on every factor in Saipan Zoning Law § 702. Third, even if Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-10382 and Zoning Board Order No. 2022-1-03 are somehow deficient, the error is harmless.

“In sum, the court, having reviewed the full certified record, is satisfied that the Zoning board’s decision to grant AK’s conditional use application was supported by substantial evidence—that is, the decision was a reasonable exercise of discretion and was adequately supported by evidence in the record.

Wiseman also determined that the Zoning board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously but acted within a zone of reasonableness after considering all of the relevant compatibility issues.

File photo of Atkins Kroll Saipan’s Lexus models. The Superior Court has recently upheld the Zoning board’s decision to issue two zoning permits to Atkins Kroll Saipan for the construction of a new Toyota/Lexus dealership.

-MARK RABAGO

Wiseman’s decision in the case arose from a Supreme Court decision last year that ruled in favor of Anaks in its appeal to vacate a Superior Court decision to dismiss its petition against the Zoning permits issued to Atkins Kroll. Anaks’ case was reverted back to the Superior Court for review of the Zoning board’s decision. In addition, Anaks had also asked the court to set aside the Zoning board’s decision and sought injunctive relief.

As an additional basis for setting aside the conditional use permits, Anaks had argued that the Zoning board acted beyond its authority when it hired a Zoning administrator who allegedly lacks the necessary professional credentials.

However, Wiseman states in his order that the Zoning administrator’s qualifications are an insufficient basis to set aside the conditional use permits, where the decision to approve AK’s application rested squarely within the Zoning board’s authority and was supported by substantial evidence.

Anaks had also asked the court to set aside AK’s conditional use permits because “the Zoning board’s decision to approve the conditional use permit without fully evaluating the project’s impacts…is contrary to a constitutional right—…the right to a clean and healthful environment.”

Anaks argued that the Zoning board’s failure to do this will cause Anaks to suffer “harmful and unnecessary noise pollution.”

However, the court found that although the residents of Anaks do have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, nothing in the record suggests that the Zoning board’s decision ran roughshod over this right or subjected Anaks to “significant environmental injuries” that are “probable to occur.”

Atkins Kroll first applied for a permit with the Zoning board last Jan. 4, 2022, to build its dealership and vehicle repair facility next to the Anaks Condominium complex in Puerto Rico.

On March 18, 2022, the Zoning board approved the permit and issued it on April 13, 2022.

Anaks filed a petition to challenge the permit in the Superior Court, but the Superior Court dismissed the petition because it found that it was untimely filed. Last year, the high court found that the petition was timely filed and reverted the petition back to the Superior Court for review.

Copyright © All rights reserved. | Newsphere by AF themes.