Denelle v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Pawtucket

• Decision Date: 17 July 1959
• Docket Number: No. 1268,1268
• Citation: 89 R.I. 456,153 A.2d 143
• Parties: Delphis J. DENELLE et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE CITY OF PAWTUCKET. M. P.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 143

153 A.2d 143

89 R.I. 456

Delphis J. DENELLE et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE CITY OF PAWTUCKET.

M. P. No. 1268.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 17, 1959.

Woolley, Blais & Quinn, Pawtucket, for petitioners Delphis J. and Eva L. Denelle.

Joseph A. Capineri, Pawtucket, for petitioners Guilio S. and Anna Satti.

John A. O'Neill, City Solicitor, Harvey J. Ryan, Asst. City Solicitor, Pawtucket, for respondent.

FROST, Justice.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the zoning board of review of the city of Pawtucket denying the applications of the petitioners for an exception or variance to permit them to erect a gasoline filling station on land owned by them in a residence B district. The writ was issued and pursuant thereto the pertinent records have been certified to this court.

Delphis J. Denelle and his wife Eva L. Denelle are the owners of an unimproved lot of land on the easterly side of Newport avenue in Pawtucket. This lot is numbered 36 on assessor's plat No. 41. Guilio S. Satti and his wife Anna Satti are the owners of two unimproved lots numbered 32 and 34 respectively on said plat and located on Newport avenue just southerly of the Denelle lot. This three lots together have a frontage of 150 feet and each extends back 100 feet.

The Denelles and the Sattis each filed an application for an exception or a variance with the board of appeals which sits as a board of review in matters pertaining to the zoning ordinance. The applications were heard together on October 14, 1958 and several remonstrants appeared. Thereafter the members of the board viewed the premises and later denied the applications.

It appears from the evidence that the lots in question are in a residence B district; that Newport avenue is 66 feet wide and is a main highway extending from the Massachusetts state line southerly to the city line of the city of East Providence; that it is heavily traveled; and that the land contiguous thereto has become commercialized to some degree.

Delphis J. Denelle, one of the petitioners, testified that it would not be wise to build a residence on this property; that going south on Newport avenue there is a nursery, a doughnut shop, a wallpaper store and the Narragansett race track; that going north there is an apartment house, a beauty parlor, a doctor's office, insurance offices, a bank and a drugstore; and that the area was largely commercial.

Roger Messier, a real estate expert, testified that he had been in the real estate and insurance business for five years; that the most beneficial use of this property was a commercial use; that it would not be practical for Mr. Denelle to build there; and that a gas station would enhance the property values in the neighborhood.

Richard H. Blake testified that he was employed by Esso Standard Oil Company; that it is the policy of his company to own gasoline stations and lease them to individual operators.

Jesse Perry testified that in 1952 he built a sixteen-room apartment house on land adjoining lot No. 36; that there are four apartments which are all rented at $100 each a month; and that he felt that a gasoline station would depreciate his property.

A resident of Maplewood Drive testified that his house was westerly of the proposed gasoline station and about 200 feet away; that he had been in the real estate business; that a gasoline station would be a traffic hazard; that it was not needed; and that houses, if built within the reach of average people, would be sold before they were completed. Another resident of Maplewood Drive whose property was in part on Newport avenue testified that the proposed gasoline station would depreciate property and also constitute a fire hazard.

The question before us is whether the decision of the board based on the exercise of its discretion was so arbitrary and unreasonable as to constitute a clear abuse of discretion. Woodbury v. Zoning Board of Review, 78 R.I. 319, 82 A.2d 164.

Conflicting opinions were expressed on whether the proposed gasoline station would be a fire hazard, would tend to obstruct traffic, and would depreciate surrounding property. The board viewed the...