Audette v. Coletti, 86-156-M

• Decision Date: 31 March 1988
• Docket Number: No. 86-156-M,86-156-M
• Citation: 539 A.2d 520
• Parties: Arthur AUDETTE et al. v. John T. COLETTI, D.D.S. et al. P.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 520

539 A.2d 520

Arthur AUDETTE et al. v. John T. COLETTI, D.D.S. et al.

No. 86-156-M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 31, 1988.

Lauren E. Jones, Michael T. Eskey, Jones & Aisenberg, Providence, for plaintiffs.

John P. McGann, Philip W. Noel, Gary R. Pannone, Coffey, McGovern, Noel & Neal Ltd., Providence, Alfred Ferruolo, Warwick, for defendants.

OPINION

MURRAY, Justice.

This matter is before this court on a petition for certiorari filed by Arthur Audette, Patricia Audette, John Blakeslee, and Jane Blakeslee. The petitioners sought review of a Superior Court order filed March 10, 1986, entered after a written decision that sustained a decision of the Zoning Board of Review for the City of Warwick (the board). The board had granted an application for a special exception filed by Dr. John T. Coletti (Coletti), pursuant to which Coletti sought to use his property, located in a residential zone in Warwick, for a business use. For the reasons set forth below, the petition for certiorari is granted and the judgment below is quashed.

The subject matter of this dispute centers around the permitted use of a piece of property purchased by Coletti from Robert and Angelica Redleaf (the Redleafs). The parcel in question was situated in an area zoned for residential use. The Redleafs previously applied for and were granted a special exception ¹ to construct a medical building on the parcel. The special exception was subject to certain restrictions. Among the restrictions to which the Redleafs were required to adhere were three requirements of particular interest to petitioners. The proposed structure was to be moved toward the western property line. A driveway proposed by the Redleafs was to be situated to the west of the medical building. A stockade fence was to be erected to separate the two parcels of land. These restrictions, along with two others, had the effect of moving the proposed structure as far away as possible from a two-hundred-year-old home owned by two of petitioners, Arthur and Patricia Audette (the Audettes). ²

The restrictions further provided the Audettes with a buffer from some of the more intrusive effects that a commercial structure are likely to have upon abutting residential dwellings. The special exception was issued on December 9, 1982 and was later extended for one additional year, to expire on December 9, 1984. The Redleafs elected not to proceed with the construction of the medical building as approved by the zoning board. Instead they conveyed their interest in the property to Coletti, respondent herein. ³

During the period of time in which the prior special exception remained in effect Coletti came before the board and requested a change in site plan. The change was approved. Construction commenced and a foundation was at least partially laid. The foundation and certain other details of the structure did not conform to the restrictions contained in the special exception issued to the Redleafs. The petitioners complained to the board. Because the hearing at which the change was approved was held without notice to petitioners the board rescinded its approval. ⁴ A cease and desist order was issued by the building inspector. Coletti then petitioned the board anew to grant him a special exception that would allow him to erect the proposed structure closer to the lot owned by the Audettes. A driveway leading to a parking lot was to run along the easterly border of the Coletti parcel, abutting the Audette home. The board conducted a hearing on January 15, 1985. Coletti offered competent expert testimony sufficient to sustain a finding by the board that the erection of a medical building was not inimical to the public interest. The board then issued the special exception applied for by Coletti. The terms of this special exception contravened those of the prior special exception that was granted to the Redleafs. The prior special exception had meanwhile expired. The proceedings relative to the earlier Redleaf application were incorporated into the record on Coletti's motion. During the hearing Coletti failed to introduce any evidence regarding a substantial change in circumstances in the interval between the two applications.

For purposes of this opinion the term special exception refers to the special exception granted to Coletti. The special exception granted to the Redleafs is termed the prior special exception.

In reviewing by way of certiorari a judgment of the Superior Court rendered pursuant to appeals from zoning board decisions under G.L. 1956 (1980 Reenactment) § 45-24-20, this court applies the "some" or "any" evidence test and reviews the record to determine whether legally competent evidence exists to support the findings of the trial court. Reversal of the judgment of the trial justice is required if this court finds that the trial justice misapplied the law, or that his findings were clearly wrong, or that he misconceived or overlooked material evidence. Redman v. Zoning and Platting Board of Review of Narragansett, 491 A.2d 998, 999 (R.I. 1985) We hold that the trial justice misapplied the applicable law in ignoring the doctrine of administrative finality, as set forth by this court on numerous occasions.

Where a zoning board hears an application for relief and denies it, the doctrine of administrative finality bars a subsequent application for the same relief absent a showing of a change in material circumstances in the time intervening between the two applications. Marks v. Zoning Board of Review of Providence, 98 R.I. 405, 203 A.2d 761 (1964). This is so without regard to whether a land owner has allowed a prior special exception to lapse. Otherwise an applicant, dissatisfied with conditions imposed in connection with the granting of a prior special exception, need only wait until the special exception expires to reapply. This court will not allow a land owner,...