Mongony v. Bevilacqua

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BEVILACQUA
• Citation: Mongony v. Bevilacqua, 432 A.2d 661 (R.I. 1981)
• Decision Date: 14 July 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-173-A,80-173-A
• Parties: Ernest MONGONY et al. v. Joseph J. BEVILACQUA, Ph.D., Director, Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals et al. ppeal.

Page 661

432 A.2d 661

Ernest MONGONY et al. v. Joseph J. BEVILACQUA, Ph.D., Director, Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals et al.

No. 80-173-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 14, 1981.

Louis M. Cioci, Johnston, for plaintiffs.

Dennis J. Roberts, II, Atty. Gen., Eileen G. Cooney, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.

OPINION

BEVILACQUA, Chief Justice.

The plaintiffs brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, alleging that their constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would be violated by the proposed establishment by the defendants of a community residence for retarded persons in their neighborhood. Before reaching the federal constitutional issues raised by the plaintiffs, the District Court judge pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6 certified to this court a series of questions together with a statement of facts relevant to the controversy in which the questions arose.

The underlying facts in the instant case are undisputed. In 1979 the State of Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals (the department) purchased a parcel of property located in a "Residential A" zone, ¹ at 22 Buratti Road, Johnston, Rhode Island, for use as a community or group residence for six retarded persons. The plaintiffs, all Johnston residents who resided within 500 feet of the property on which the proposed community residence would be established, conveyed their objections to the proposed use of the Buratti Road property to the department and to Johnston town officials.

Subsequently, in February 1979, a meeting was held between the assistant director of the division of retardation of the department, Dr. Robert L. Carl, Jr., and Johnston town officials. On March 15, 1979, another informational meeting was conducted between the assistant director and area residents. Notwithstanding these meetings, plaintiffs still being dissatisfied, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island alleging that the proposed use of a community residence for retarded citizens did not constitute a "single family dwelling" within the ambit of the applicable provision of the Johnston zoning ordinance and that establishment of any such community residence would result in a diminution of surrounding property values to such an extent that area residents would be deprived of property without due process of law. Furthermore, plaintiffs alleged that the application of General Laws 1956 (1980 Reenactment) § 45-24-22, ² as enacted by P. L. 1977, ch. 257, § 1, denied them equal protection of the law by permitting a special category of persons to be exempt from all local zoning restrictions while plaintiffs were not entitled to such an exemption. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought a declaration that § 45-24-22 violated their constitutional rights and that defendants by permanently enjoined from establishing the community residence on Buratti Road. ³

At the hearing, plaintiffs presented as a witness Frank Gallo, the zoning enforcement officer and the building inspector of the town of Johnston. Gallo testified that while single-family dwellings were allowed in the residential area of Buratti Road, residences wherein six retarded citizens would live would not constitute a "family" for purposes of compliance with the Johnston zoning ordinance. ⁴ Therefore, the establishment of a community residence at 22 Buratti Road was not permitted.

Testifying on behalf of defendants, Dr. Robert L. Carl, Jr., initially set forth the nature and purpose of a community residence for retarded persons. Doctor Carl also offered his opinion that the proposed community residence constituted a single housekeeping unit. Both sides submitted evidence about the property in the surrounding area.

Upon the conclusion of all the testimony, the District Court judge found as a fact that the testimony of Dr. Carl presented on behalf of defendants regarding the method and manner of use of the proposed community residence was entirely credible and without any inherent contradictions. The District Court judge, however, decided that before he would address the constitutional issues presented by the plaintiffs, it was necessary that the Rhode Island Supreme Court answer the following certified questions:

"1. Is the proposed use at 22 Buratti Road a family use within the provisions of, and as that term is employed, in the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Johnston(?)

"2. If the response to Question Number 1 is no, is the application of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Johnston superseded by the provisions of Section 45-24-22, General Laws of Rhode Island, 1956, as amended, with respect to the proposed use at 22 Buratti Road(?)

"3. If the response to Question Number 2 is no, does Section 45-24-22, General Laws of Rhode Island, 1956, as amended, preclude the application of the provisions, including limitations, of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Johnston, to the property located as Number 22 Buratti Road in said Town(?)

"4. If the response to Question Number 3 is no, then does the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Johnston apply to the proposed use, in view of the fact that title to the property at 22 Buratti Road is in the State of Rhode Island(?)"

The plaintiffs contend first that the town building inspector, acting as the town's zoning enforcement officer, properly determined that the projected occupants of the proposed community residence did not fall within the definition of family as set forth in the Johnston zoning ordinance. Moreover, plaintiffs argue that anyone aggrieved by the decision of the building inspector should file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of Johnston Town Code, Zoning art. II, § 26-10 (1980), and if necessary, in accordance with § 45-24-20. Thus plaintiffs contend that the answer to the first certified question should be "No." The defendants argue that the answer to the first question should be "Yes" because the proposed community residence constitutes a single-family dwelling, a permissible use under the Johnston zoning ordinance.

As we have already noted, under the applicable Johnston zoning ordinance, a family is "(o)ne or more persons living as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel or club." Johnston Town Code, Zoning art. XVIII (19) (1980); see note 4 supra. The Johnston zoning ordinance, however, does not impose any requirement that the persons living together be biologically related in order to constitute a family.

It is a well-settled principle in this jurisdiction that the rules of statutory construction apply equally to the construction...