Denton v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Warwick, 1180
| Decision Date | 26 July 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 1180,1180 |
| Citation | 133 A.2d 718,86 R.I. 219 |
| Parties | Herbert A. DENTON, Jr. et ux. v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF CITY OF WARWICK. M. P. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Cross, Graham, Reid & Ewing, Alfred B. Stapleton, and Edward J. Regan, Providence, for petitioners.
Ralph T. Lewis, Jr., City Sol. of Warwick, Providence, for respondent.
This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the zoning board of review of the city of Warwick denying the petitioners' application for an exception or a variance which would permit them to erect a one-family dwelling and a garage on an undersized lot. Pursuant to the writ the board returned to this court a certified copy of the record of the proceedings before it.
It appears therefrom that petitioners are the owners of lot No. 47 on assessor's plat 383 located on Ronaele Drive in the Warwick Neck section of the city of Warwick. It is not disputed that the lot contains 23,011 square feet and that it is in an AA residence district, wherein the ordinance requires a minimum lot area for each principal building of 40,000 square feet. At various times in the past, prior owners of this lot have made application to the board for an exception or variance. Twice during 1950 an owner had been denied permission to convert a barn, which was on the land, into a dwelling house. On April 11, 1951, the then owner, Michael A. Fitzpatrick, was granted permission by the board to convert the barn into a one-family dwelling. Thereafter the building inspector issued a permit for such conversion, and this permit was renewed on March 17, 1953, June 17, 1954, and June 15, 1955. It appears from the record that as renewed the permit authorized the erection of a one-family house on the lot and not merely the conversion of the barn.
The petitioners purchased this lot from Fitzpatrick on July 15, 1955, one month after the permit was renewed on June 15, 1955. Before purchasing, petitioners had made inquiry concerning their right to build on the lot and they had been assured by someone employed in the office of the building inspector that they would be permitted to erect a one-family dwelling thereon. After acquiring title to the land petitioners were denied a construction permit by the building inspector and were informed that it would be necessary for them to apply to the board for an exception or variance. They made such application on March 20, 1956, and a hearing thereon was held on April 11, 1956.
In their application the petitioners rely specifically on the provisions of section XV(A) 2 and 4e of the ordinance. Each of these provisions declares the authority of the board to grant a variance in the application of the terms of the ordinance where a literal enforcement thereof would result in unnecessary hardship. This power is conferred upon the board by General Laws 1938, chapter 342, § 8. It is clear that petitioners were seeking a variance on the grounds of unnecessary hardship. After the hearing on April 11, 1956, the board denied the application and found in substance that the applicants had attempted to observe the provisions of the ordinance but that there was a 'self-imposed hardship.' In our judgment it is clear that the board found the existence of hardship in this case, but upon concluding that such hardship was 'self-imposed' it was of the opinion that it should deny the application.
It is our well-settled law that the legislature, in conferring authority upon boards of review to grant a variance upon a showing of unnecessary hardship flowing from a literal enforcement of the terms of the ordinance contained in said § 8 of the act, intended to vest these boards with authority to prevent the indirect taking of land without compensation by depriving the owner of all beneficial use thereof. Where it is shown that such deprivation would follow a literal enforcement of the ordinance and it does not appear that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smithfield Concerned Citizens v. Town of Smithfield
...must be granted when a failure to do so would deprive an owner of all beneficial use of his property. E.g., Denton v. Zoning Bd. of Review, 86 R.I. 219, 133 A.2d 718 (1957). In addition, Rhode Island law permits a landowner to obtain relief from the dimensional requirements of a zoning ordi......
-
Ray Reedy, Inc. v. Town of North Kingstown
...in making valuable use of their property. See DeStefano, 122 R.I. at 248, 405 A.2d at 1171 (citing Denton v. Zoning Board of Review, 86 R.I. 219, 223, 133 A.2d 718, 720 (1957) ("Finally, we observe that both the respondent and the trial court also relied upon the fact that the petitioners a......
-
Ray Reedy, Inc. v. Town of North Kingstown, C. A. WC 2007-0664
...in making valuable use of their property. See DeStefano, 122 R.I. at 248, 405 A.2d at 1171 (citing Denton v. Zoning Board of Review, 86 R.I. 219, 223, 133 A.2d 718, 720 (1957) ("Finally, we observe that both the respondent and the trial court also relied upon the fact that the petitioners a......
-
Ray Reedy, Inc. v. Town of North Kingstown
...in making valuable use of their property. See DeStefano, 122 R.I. at 248, 405 A.2d at 1171 (citing Denton v. Zoning Board of Review, 86 R.I. 219, 223, 133 A.2d 718, 720 (1957) ("Finally, we observe that both the respondent and the trial court also relied upon the fact that the petitioners a......