Taft v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Warwick, 937

Citation76 R.I. 443,71 A.2d 886
Decision Date15 March 1950
Docket NumberNo. 937,937
PartiesTAFT et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF CITY OF WARWICK. M. P.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Edmund J. Carberry, Jr., Aram A. Arabian, Providence, for petitioners.

Hailes L. Palmer, City Solicitor of Warwick, Providence, for City of Warwick and respondent Zoning Board of Review.

FLYNN, Chief Justice.

This is a petition for certiorari to review and quash the respondent board's decision granting an application for a variance under the zoning ordinance of the city of Warwick to permit substantial alterations of a nonconforming use in a residential district into a dwelling. Pursuant to the writ the board has made a return of its records including a general summary of the evidence upon which it based its decision.

The case was previously before this court, Taft v. Zoning Board of Review, R.I., 64 A.2d 200. At that time the owner of the lot here involved had received a permit from the building inspector to structurally alter a garage or storage shed without first obtaining from the board an exception or variance and without otherwise conforming to the zoning restrictions for a residential B district in which the lot was located. When the board, on the appeal of these petitioners, sustained the issuance of such permit a writ of certiorari was sought in this court and after a hearing the decision of the board was quashed.

Thereafter an application was filed for a variance to 'convert present building into a single family dwelling' by changing, as substantially had appeared in the quashed permit, 'flat roof into a pitch roof, adding windows and doors, and interior changes.' After a hearing at which the applicant, petitioners, and other witnesses for and against the granting of such application gave testimony, the board unanimously granted the variance subject to a certain condition or safeguard. The present petition for certiorari seeks to quash that decision as arbitrary and unlawful.

According to the record returned to this court by the respondent board the following facts appear. The applicant for a variance owned a lot in the city of Warwick which fronted 50 feet on Hollywood avenue and contained approximately 6091 square feet in area. Close to the division line between it and the petitioners' adjoining land there was a frame building used as a garage or storage shed. The building was located on the premises when the zoning ordinance became effective. The applicant's lot and the petitioners' land are both in a residential B zoning district according to such ordinance, which among other restrictions requires that a lot must have 70 feet frontage and at least 7000 square feet in area for each single dwelling; and that there must be not less than 8 feet on each side yard and a setback of 25 feet from the street.

The application for a variance did not state, as requested by question 12, whether plans were submitted to the inspector of buildings, and no plans or specifications were attached thereto or appear in evidence. Similarly no provision or regulation of the zoning ordinance or the state enabling act, under which the application was being made, was stated in the application as requested by question 13. However, according to the return of the board the applicant described the alterations he intended to make and testified that the detailed plans had been submitted to the building inspector when the permit was granted.

As shown on the map, which is a part of the sworn petition here and which is not disputed, the building is a frame structure about 24 by 24 feet and is located on the lot so that the southwesterly corner is 46.50 feet back and the northwesterly corner is 48.70 feet back easterly from Hollywood avenue. The dimensions given in the previous case apparently included an enlargement as then proposed. The northwesterly corner of the building is only three quarters of an inch from the division line of petitioners' land and the northeasterly corner of the building is 2.9 feet therefrom.

Apparently after issuance of the permit, pursuant thereto, and before petitioners took their appeal therefrom to the board in the first case, the applicant had made some improvements at a cost of $500, according to his testimony. Some of the witnesses, including the applicant, testified that the change would not harm but would benefit the general appearance and valuation of property in the neighborhood while others, including the petitioners, agreed in some respects but otherwise testified to the contrary.

The board by a unanimous decision granted the variance to the applicant but added the following condition: 'That a safeguard, satisfactory to the building inspector shall be attached to the building in such a manner as to prevent rain or snow from overflowing onto adjacent property.' It expressly found therein that 'it would be a hardship on the owner to deny this petition'; and that a residence would improve the appearance, 'tending to enhance the property valuation of this neighborhood by making it more in keeping with the general character of a residential area.' The decision also set forth the findings and reasoning that led the board to its conclusion.

The petitioners...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Krikor S. Dulgarian Trust v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Providence
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • 22 Agosto 2013
    ...which he was relying. Id. (citing Winters v. Zoning Board of Review, 80 R.I. 275, 278, 96 A.2d 337 (1953); Taft v. Zoning Board of Review, 76 R.I. 443, 447, 71 A.2d 886 (1950)). It is well settled that in zoning matters "notice properly advising the public of the date, time and place at whi......
  • Krikor S. Dulgarian Trust v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Providence
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • 22 Agosto 2013
    ...which he was relying. Id. (citing Winters v. Zoning Board of Review, 80 R.I. 275, 278, 96 A.2d 337 (1953); Taft v. Zoning Board of Review, 76 R.I. 443, 447, 71 A.2d 886 (1950)). It is well settled that in zoning matters "notice properly advising the public of the date, time and place at whi......
  • Krikor S. Dulgarian Trust v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Providence, C.A. PC-2012-5114
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • 22 Agosto 2013
    ...which he was relying. Id. (citing Winters v. Zoning Board of Review, 80 R.I. 275, 278, 96 A.2d 337 (1953); Taft v. Zoning Board of Review, 76 R.I. 443, 447, 71 A.2d 886 (1950)). It is well settled that in zoning matters "notice properly advising the public of the date, time and place at whi......
  • Krikor S. Dulgarian Trust v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Providence
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • 22 Agosto 2013
    ...which he was relying. Id. (citing Winters v. Zoning Board of Review, 80 R.I. 275, 278, 96 A.2d 337 (1953); Taft v. Zoning Board of Review, 76 R.I. 443, 447, 71 A.2d 886 (1950)). It is well settled that in zoning matters "notice properly advising the public of the date, time and place at whi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT