Michael West v. Mcdonald

• Decision Date: 06 May 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2008–254–M.P.,2008–254–M.P.
• Parties: Michael WEST et al.v.James McDONALD et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

18 A.3d 526

Michael WEST et al.

v.James McDONALD et al.

No. 2008–254–M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 6, 2011.

Michael A. Kelly, Providence, Esq., for Petitioner.Timothy J. Chapman, Esquire, for Respondent.Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.

OPINION

Justice FLAHERTY, for the Court.

“No man acquires property without acquiring with it a little arithmetic also.” ¹ The petitioner, Michael West, acquired both land and more than a little arithmetic when he sought to develop two-family homes on land in an East Providence residential neighborhood.² The petitioner desired to construct a total of six units, in the form of three duplexes. After gaining initial support for his proposal from East Providence's zoning officer, West's plan to develop the land eventually was denied by the East Providence Planning Board; that decision was affirmed by both the board of appeals and the Superior Court for Providence County.³ We granted the petition for certiorari to determine whether the requirements of a municipality's comprehensive plan are controlling when they restrict a use that would seem to be allowed under the zoning code.⁴ For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

IFacts and Travel

AEast Providence's Zoning and Planning Decisions

In February 2006, petitioner sought approval for an administrative subdivision of three parcels of land located between Lynn and Vineland Avenues in East Providence.⁵ The land is situated in a residential–4 (R–4) zone that permits construction of two-unit dwellings, provided that they are built on lots containing at least 8,750 square feet. To construct three two-family dwellings on the land and comply with the zoning ordinance, petitioner needed to shift the lot lines of the parcels to achieve three lots of the minimum permissible size (one lot actually would be 10,500 square feet). ⁶

After reviewing petitioner's application, the city planner, Jeanne Boyle, determined that West's petition for an administrative subdivision should be reviewed as a minor subdivision.⁷ That triggered a more comprehensive approval process because, under municipal regulations, minor subdivisions must be approved by the city's planning board. As such, on March 24, 2006, West resubmitted his application, this time seeking a minor subdivision.

On April 20, 2006, Edward Pimentel, East Providence's zoning officer determined that the proposal complied with the relevant zoning provisions, and he approved West's application for a minor subdivision with respect to any zoning-code provisions. After Ms. Boyle issued a certificate of completeness of the application, it was forwarded to the planning board for its consideration. On May 3, 2006, the planning department made a recommendation to the planning board that that body grant conditional approval for the subdivision.⁸ In its evaluation, the planning department concluded that petitioner's proposal was consistent with East Providence's comprehensive plan, as well as its zoning ordinance.⁹

Although the proposal seemed to be moving seamlessly through the approval process, controversy raised its head when the planning board considered the application at its meeting on May 8, 2006. Despite the assertion of the planning department that the proposed changes in the boundary lines and the construction of three two-family dwellings were in accordance with the comprehensive plan, including the density requirements, several neighbors voiced concern at the meeting. The common thread of the neighbors' objections was that the neighborhood already was densely populated, and the area would not be able to absorb the burden that six additional residential units would bring. In response to the concerns of the neighbors, the planning board continued the hearing in order to investigate the matter further. Specifically, the city planner raised a concern that the proposal might not, in fact, comply with the comprehensive plan's density limits.

Two months later, on July 17, 2006, the planning department sent a second memo to the planning board. In it, the planning department now concluded that West's proposed plan was “contrary to many of the goals, policies, objectives, maps, and policy statements,” of the comprehensive plan.

BEast Providence's Comprehensive Plan

Despite its location in a zoning district designated as R–4, petitioner's land is nonetheless sited in an area designated as “Low Density Residential” in East Providence's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Under the Rhode Island Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act, G.L.1956 chapter 22.2 of title 45, municipalities are required to “[e]stablish * * * a program of comprehensive planning * * *.” Section 45–22.2–3(b)(1). The purpose of the act is, in part, to “promote the appropriate use of land.” Section 45–22.2–3(a)(4). Municipalities must develop and regularly update plans that include (1) a “ [g]oals and policies statement ” for future growth and development; (2) a “ [l]and use plan element ” designating the proposed general distribution and general location of land for residential, commercial, and other uses; (3) a “ [h]ousing element ” identifying and analyzing present and future housing needs and objectives; (4) an “ [e]conomic development element ”; (5) a “ [n]atural and cultural resources element ”; (6) a “ [s]ervices and facilities element ”; (7) an “ [o]pen space and recreation element ”; and (8) a “ [c]irculation element.” Section 45–22.2–6. Moreover, cities and towns are required to bring zoning ordinances into conformity with the locality's comprehensive plan. Section 45–22.2–5(a)(3); G.L.1956 §§ 45–24–29(b)(2); 45–24–34; 45–24–50.

In November 2001, the city council amended East Providence's comprehensive plan to decrease the residential density of the “Low Density Residential” category from 8 dwelling units per acre to 5.8 dwelling units per acre. Apart from any zoning requirements, this density limitation had the practical effect of limiting the number of units that could be constructed on West's combined properties to a maximum of 3.72 dwellings. After amending the comprehensive plan, the city council amended the zoning ordinances, purportedly to bring them into conformance with the comprehensive plan. Included among the zoning changes enacted by the council was a requirement that two-family dwellings in R–4 areas maintain a minimum area of 8,750 square feet. However, the area requirement does not refer to any density limitation. The parties agree that the density limitations in the comprehensive plan are more restrictive than the lot-size requirements in the zoning ordinances. Thus, some developments, such as the one proposed by West, would seem to be allowed by the zoning ordinance but not by the comprehensive plan.

After reconsidering the density requirements of the comprehensive plan, the planning department reversed course and recommended that the planning board reject West's application for a minor subdivision. When it reconvened on the application on July 20, 2006, the board did just that, rejecting the proposal on a unanimous vote. West appealed the board's decision to the East Providence Zoning Board of Review, sitting as the board of appeals from the planning board (board of appeals). In a very brief decision, the board of appeals denied the appeal, concluding that the planning board properly had interpreted and applied the comprehensive plan and subdivision regulations. It also affirmed the board's rejection of petitioner's equitable estoppel claim.

West subsequently appealed to the Superior

Court.¹⁰

CThe Superior Court Decision

A trial justice of the Superior Court for Providence County heard West's appeal in November 2007. After hearing arguments by the parties, the trial justice affirmed the board of appeals and entered judgment in favor of the City of East Providence on September 10, 2008.

West petitioned this Court for and was granted a writ of certiorari. In his petition, West argues (1) that the Superior Court erred when it held that a municipality is not mandated to conform its zoning ordinance to the comprehensive plan within eighteen months of adopting the comprehensive plan; (2) that the Superior Court misinterpreted East Providence's zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan, subdivision regulations, and the record of prior proceedings; (3) that the Superior Court erred when it failed properly to resolve a conflict between the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan, and then ruled that the comprehensive plan controls to resolve any such conflict; (4) that the Superior Court's decision is contrary to public policy and the public interest; and (5) that the doctrine of equitable estoppel prevents the denial of West's proposed subdivision.

IIStandard of Review

Under G.L.1956 § 45–23–71, an aggrieved party in an application for the subdivision of land may appeal the decision of the board of appeals to the Superior Court. Subsection (c) of § 45–23–71 describes the standard of review that is employed by that tribunal:

“The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the planning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the board of appeal or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are:

“(1) In violation of constitutional, statutory, ordinance or planning board regulations provisions;

“(2) In excess of the authority granted to the planning board by statute or ordinance;

“(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

“(4) Affected by other error of law;

“(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of the whole record; or

“(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.”

The...