City of Warwick v. Campbell, 2256
| Decision Date | 10 August 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 2256,2256 |
| Parties | CITY OF WARWICK v. CAMPBELL et al. Eq. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Ralph T. Lewis, Jr., Asst. City Sol. of Warwick, Providence, for complainant.
A. Norman LaSalle, John L. McElroy, Providence, for respondents.
This bill in equity was brought by the complainant to enjoin the respondents from parking or storing certain commercial vehicles on two lots of land located in the city of Warwick in this state. After a hearing in the superior court the trial justice denied and dismissed the bill in respect to one lot and enjoined two of the respondents from parking or storing more than four such vehicles on the other lot. From the entry of a decree to that effect the complainant has duly prosecuted its appeal.
The issue before us has been narrowed. It appears that the respondents Walter J. Campbell and his wife are the owners of realty in the city of Warwick upon which there is a dwelling house and other improvements. The land is described as lot No. 49 on tax assessors' plat No. 320, which they purchased by deed dated May 18, 1945. The zoning ordinance of the city of Warwick, under which the lot was placed in a residence B district, was adopted June 21, 1945. After acquiring such lot the respondents at once began to store and park thereon certain commercial vehicles having a capacity of more than two tons, and also vans, trailers, semi-trailers and similar vehicles, thus creating a use existing prior to and at the time of the adoption of the zoning ordinance. Under section XIII of that ordinance such practice became a valid nonconforming use and is so admitted by complainant. At the hearing in the superior court and in argument here the city agreed that in the circumstances it has no case so far as the use of lot 49 is concerned, and that paragraphs first and third of the decree appealed from are correct.
The complainant, however, attacks the second paragraph of the decree which reads as follows: 'That Lot No. 47 on Assessors Plat No. 320 of the plats on file in the office of the Board of Assessors in said City of Warwick may be used for the parking and storing of not more than four motor vehicles and commercial vehicles, vans, trailers, semi-trailers or similar vehicles designed to be propelled by a separate means of locomotion, and vehicles designed to be used for moving said vans, trailers or semi-trailers, and the restraining order heretofore entered is hereby vacated and dissolved, provided, however, that the respondents Ruth Campbell and Delmar P. Campbell are hereby enjoined from parking or storing more than four of the vehicles herein described on said Lot No. 47 on Assessors Plat No. 320 of the plats on file in the office of the Board of Assessors in said City of Warwick.'
It is complainant's contention that under the provisions of the zoning ordinance as originally passed and as applied to the facts herein the respondents Ruth Campbell and Delmar P. Campbell are not entitled to store or park any commercial vehicles on lot 47 on assessors' plat 320 of the city of Warwick. It appears that Ruth Campbell is the wife of Delmar P. Campbell; that the latter is the son of respondent Walter J. Campbell, who is the owner of lot 49; that Ruth Campbell purchased lot 47 by deed dated October 20, 1949 for the express and only purpose of storing and parking commercial vehicles thereon; and that since buying the lot she has continuously so used it for vehicles having a capacity of more than two tons. Under the zoning ordinance lot 47 was situated in a residence B district and respondent Ruth Campbell testified that she knew that fact when she purchased the lot in 1949. However, she contends that at such time there was no provision in the zoning ordinance expressly prohibiting the storing and parking of commercial vehicles in such a residence district.
In November 1952 the zoning ordinance was amended by adding a subsection providing an accessory use which allowed the parking or storing of motor vehicles in a certain manner in such district, but particularly prohibited the parking or storing of commercial vehicles having a capacity of more than two tons or having three or more axles, and also vans, trailers and semi-trailers, or similar vehicles. It further appears that lot 47 has a street frontage of 45 feet, a depth of 112 feet, and adjoins lot 49. The zoning ordinance requires that in a residence B district a lot to be used for the location of a singlefamily dwelling must have a minimum street frontage of 70 feet and an area of at least 7,000 square feet.
Section VI of the zoning ordinance of the city of Warwick reads in part as follows:
'In a Residence B District the following regulations shall apply:
'(A) Residence B District Uses:
'A building may be erected, altered or used, and a lot or premises may be used for any of the following purposes and for no other: (italics ours)
'(B) Accessory Uses:
'In a Residence B District a use accessory to an authorized use shall be permitted subject to the provisions of sub-section (A) of Section X.'
Section X above rferred to contains the following pertinent language:
'(A) Accessory Uses in Residential Districts:
'In a Residential District Accessory Uses shall be permitted as follows:
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
Also section XIX of the ordinance defines certain words contained therein as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
County Com'rs of Carroll County v. Zent
...(1969); Samsa v. Heck, 13 Ohio App.2d 94, 234 N.E.2d 312, 315-16 (1967); Silver, 112 A.2d at 86-87; and City of Warwick v. Campbell, 82 R.I. 300, 107 A.2d 334, 336-37 (1954). We cited no Maryland authority. Kowalski has not since been cited by the Maryland appellate While at first glance, o......
-
Carmical v McAfee
...Commw. Ct. 1972); Hein v. Town of Foster Zoning Bd., 632 A.2d 643 (R.I. 1993); Sanfilippo v. Board. of Review, supra; City of Warwick v. Campbell, 107 A.2d 334 (R.I. 1954). Given the weight of this authority, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in determining that there was proba......
-
Sechrist v. Municipal Court
...of the neighborhood. (See City of Beverly Hills v. Brady, supra, 34 Cal.2d at p. 857, 215 P.2d 460; cf. City of Warwick v. Campbell (1954) 82 R.I. 300, 107 A.2d 334, 337 (parking of a commercial vehicle on residential premises).) Thus, where there is external evidence of such activity--the ......
-
Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. v. Scalise
...the use is permissible, but, rather, whether it is prohibited") (internal quotation omitted); see also City of Warwick v. Campbell, 82 R.I. 300, 305, 107 A.2d 334, 337 (1954) ("Zoning ordinances may be permissive in form, permitting specified uses and buildings and prohibiting all others wi......