Holgate v. Zoning Bd. Of Review Of City Of Pawtucket.

• Decision Date: 04 August 1948
• Docket Number: M. P. No. 888.
• Citation: 60 A.2d 732
• Parties: HOLGATE v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF CITY OF PAWTUCKET.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

60 A.2d 732

HOLGATE

v.ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF CITY OF PAWTUCKET.

M. P. No. 888.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Aug. 4, 1948.

Certiorari by George Holgate against the Zoning Board of Review of the City of Pawtucket to review denial of application for exception or variance under zoning ordinance.

Decision of Board reversed.

Francis Cappalli, of Providence, for petitioner.

J. Frederick Murphy, City Solicitor and Irwin Chernick, Asst. City Solicitor, both of Pawtucket, for respondent.

CAPOTOSTO, Justice.

This is a petition for certiorari to review the action of the zoning board of the city of Pawtucket, hereinafter called the board, in denying petitioner's application for an exception or variance under the zoning ordinance of that city. The writ issued and the board has made return of all records relating to the proceedings, among which are various plans and a stenographic report of the testimony given at a public hearing before the board.

It appears from those records and exhibits that the petitioner owns certain vacant land, identified as lots 124 and 125 on assessors' plat 45, situated at the southwest corner of Weeden and Coleman streets in a district zoned for dwelling houses. Together they have a frontage of approximately one hundred feet on each of said streets. To the south and east on the southerly side of Weeden street the lots are surrounded by other vacant land. In his application for permission to erect a gasoline filling station on his lots the petitioner stated that they could only be used for business purposes and that such use would be in harmony with the general character of the neighborhood.

At the hearing before the board the application was supported by a petition signed by sixteen persons who described themselves as owners of adjoining property. Petitioner and a person in the real estate business in Pawtucket testified, in substance, that if the application to use the land for a business purpose were denied, such denial would in effect completely deprive the applicant of all beneficial use of his land.

Testimony in favor of the application showed that petitioner's lots were only fit for a business use; that there were buildings in that immediate neighborhood from fifty to one hundred years old; that at least two dwellings on the northerly side of Weeden street and across from applicant's land were in a ‘dilapidated condition,’ one of which was ‘almost falling down’; and that if new dwellings were built on the land in question they would depreciate in value immediately after construction. The testimony also showed that applicant's property was near a highly industrial district and close to such large manufacturing plants as Manville Jenckes and Coats mills; and, further, that a main line of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad was located within a few hundred feet from the land under consideration. The expert's opinion was that a gasoline filling station would not depreciate but rather enhance the value of surrounding property; that it would not increase traffic hazard; and that it was in harmony with the present general character of the neighborhood.

The only person objecting to the grant of the application stated that he represented his mother and some other owners of property on Weeden street, who were ‘a...