Cranston Print Works Co. v. City of Cranston
| Decision Date | 08 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-469-MP,94-469-MP |
| Citation | 684 A.2d 689 |
| Parties | CRANSTON PRINT WORKS COMPANY v. CITY of Cranston et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case came before the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari to review the denial by the City Council (council) of Cranston, Rhode Island, of an application by Cranston Print Works Company (CPW or petitioner) for a permit to install two propane tanks on its property in Cranston, Rhode Island. In its petition, CPW contended that the decision of the council was beyond its jurisdiction, against the law and evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and a violation of CPW's equal-protection rights under the Federal and State constitutions. For the reasons stated below, we remand this matter to the council with directions that the council make findings of fact and conclusions of law and report such findings to this Court within ninety days. A summary of the facts relevant to this petition follows.
On August 18, 1993, petitioner filed an application with the Cranston Fire Department for a permit to install two 30,000-gallon propane tanks at its textile manufacturing plant. On the following day, the city of Cranston's building inspector and fire chief approved the application. On September 7, 1993, a public hearing was held before the Cranston Safety Services and Licenses Committee (committee), a body comprising several members of the city council. At the hearing, CPW's president and chief executive officer, George Shuster, explained that if his company could install the proposed storage tanks, it could then purchase interruptible gas from the Providence Gas Company that would result in annual savings of approximately $100,000. Anthony J. Palazzo (Palazzo), CPW's vice president in charge of textile operations, testified that the projected savings resulting from the proposed installation would help the company remain competitive, and he asserted that CPW's Rhode Island factory is "the only major plant in our industry in this country that does not have a propane installation." Palazzo added that CPW operates textile plants in Webster, Massachusetts, and Fletcher, North Carolina, each with four 30,000-gallon propane tanks that have been trouble-free since their installation in 1976.
The petitioner presented testimony in support of its application from a number of witnesses. Don Bouthillier, CPW's director of engineering, testified that the design of the proposed installation met or exceeded the standards established by the National Fire Protection Association for the storage and handling of liquified petroleum gases. Ray Self, vice president and general manager of Combustion Services, Inc., a company that designs and installs industrial propane-gas systems, testified that petitioner's installation plans not only met the applicable standard for industrial plants but also satisfied the stricter standard required for utility plants. James Travis, the safety health manager for Arkwright, Inc. (Arkwright), a textile facility also located in Cranston, stated that Arkwright obtained a permit for two 30,000-gallon propane tanks from the city of Cranston in 1989 and has experienced no problems with the tanks since their installation in 1990. Donna Keough, a manager for an insurance broker, testified that the fact that a residence was located near a plant with a propane tank on site would make "absolutely no difference" to the rating of a homeowner's insurance policy. Several area business owners, including the chairman of the board of the Cranston Chamber of Commerce, also testified in support of petitioner's application. In opposition to petitioner's application, the committee heard testimony from two residents and a representative of a citizens' group, Citizens Living Around a Safer Print Works (CLASP). Ron Schroeder, the spokesperson for CLASP, expressed particular concern about the risk of potential flood damage to the tanks, noting that, in addition to being within a flood plain, the proposed installation site was located downstream from an "antiquated and deteriorating" dam. A petition with 312 signatures was also presented in opposition to petitioner's application. At the conclusion of the hearing, the committee established an informal study group to consider CPW's application and to make recommendations to the committee. The petitioner's application was tabled, and the meeting was adjourned. On January 3, 1994, the committee met again and decided that CPW's application would remain tabled "indefin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ray Reedy, Inc. v. Town of North Kingstown
...decisions may be susceptible of judicial review." Von Bernuth, 770 A.2d at 396-97 (quoting Cranston Print Works Co. v. City of Cranston, 684 A.2d 689, 691 (R.I. 1996)). see Irish Partnership v. Rommel, 518 A.2d 356, 358 (R.I. 1986); see also May-Day Realty Corp. v. Board of Appeals of Pawtu......
-
Ray Reedy, Inc. v. Town of North Kingstown, C. A. WC 2007-0664
...decisions may be susceptible of judicial review." Von Bernuth, 770 A.2d at 396-97 (quoting Cranston Print Works Co. v. City of Cranston, 684 A.2d 689, 691 (R.I. 1996)). see Irish Partnership v. Rommel, 518 A.2d 356, 358 (R.I. 1986); see also May-Day Realty Corp. v. Board of Appeals of Pawtu......
-
Ray Reedy, Inc. v. Town of North Kingstown
...decisions may be susceptible of judicial review." Von Bernuth, 770 A.2d at 396-97 (quoting Cranston Print Works Co. v. City of Cranston, 684 A.2d 689, 691 (R.I. 1996)). see Irish Partnership v. Rommel, 518 A.2d 356, 358 (R.I. 1986); see also May-Day Realty Corp. v. Board of Appeals of Pawtu......
-
Ray Reedy, Inc. v. Town of North Kingstown
...... Zoning Bd. Of Review of City of Newport , 594 A.2d 878,. 880 (R.I. 1991) (quoting ... (quoting Cranston Print Works Co. v. City of. Cranston , 684 A.2d 689, ......