Zammarelli v. Beattie
Decision Date | 13 May 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 81-148-M,81-148-M |
Citation | 459 A.2d 951 |
Parties | Salvatore ZAMMARELLI and Audrey L. Zammarelli v. Malcolm W. BEATTIE et al. P. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case comes before us on a petition for certiorari from a judgment entered in the Superior Court sustaining a decision of the Zoning Board of the Town of Little Compton denying a petition for variance filed by Salvatore and Audrey L. Zammarelli (petitioners). We grant the petition and remand the case to the Superior Court with directions. The lengthy travel of this case is as follows.
In 1966 petitioners entered into an agreement to purchase an irregularly shaped lot upon a plat that had been recorded prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance in Little Compton. The lot to which this agreement related had not been numbered however at the time of recording. The owner of this platted development, Milton Simmons, died before full payment for the lot had been made. The balance of the $2,000 purchase price was paid in full to Mr. Simmons's widow July 28, 1969. Some delay was encountered in the delivery of the deed because of a claim placed against this estate by the owners of lot 78 (immediately adjacent to the subject lot), Mr. and Mrs. Brunelle. The deed was ultimately delivered and recorded June 12, 1972. This lot was later shown on the recorded plat as lot 79. Sometime in 1977 petitioners sought a variance from the Little Compton Zoning Board of Review in order to build a one-bedroom dwelling on the subject lot. This variance was sought after their application for a building permit filed January 17, 1977, had been rejected on February 10, 1977, by the building inspector. After a hearing, the board of review filed a succinct decision that reads as follows:
This decision was remarkable for more than brevity, since at the time there were only five members of the zoning board of review in Little Compton. This vote disclosed that the alternate member of the board had participated and voted as well. On appeal a justice of the Superior Court remanded the case to the zoning board because of the inadequacy of the record, including the failure of the board to set forth any findings of fact and conclusions of law.
After the remand, a hearing took place on March 27, 1979, at which testimony was adduced on behalf of petitioners, including Mr. Zammarelli, who testified concerning the history of his purchase of the lot; Mrs. Grace A. Simmons, the widow of Milton Simmons, who testified concerning her conveyance; and a real estate expert, Mrs. Terry Holland, who testified that the proposed structure would not depreciate the surrounding property. Mrs. Holland further testified that there was no other use in this residentially zoned area to which this lot might be devoted. She further stated that substantially all of the homes in the area had been built on lots of approximately the same size. This evidence was neither impeached nor contradicted.
After hearing this testimony as well as some objections from owners of lots in the vicinity, the zoning board again issued a decision that is outstanding for both brevity and ambiguity. This decision reads as follows:
On appeal a justice of the Superior Court reviewed this decision and determined that the zoning board was not in error in finding that this lot was governed by the zoning ordinance that had been adopted March 13, 1968. The justice further found that the lot was substandard 1 in size and that the board had not acted arbitrarily "in denying a setback variance."
We are unable to determine how the justice of the Superior Court could have reviewed this decision at all. We have said on a number of occasions that it is the obligation of a zoning board of review to decide cases before it so that the content of the decision meets minimal requirements. We observed in May-Day Realty Corp. v. Board of Appeals of Pawtucket, 107 R.I. 235, 239, 267 A.2d 400, 403 (1970):
This doctrine applies not only to zoning boards of review, but to any municipal board or agency. Sambo's of Rhode Island, Inc. v. McCanna, R.I., 431 A.2d 1192 (1981); Eastern Scrap Services, Inc. v. Harty, 115 R.I. 260, 341 A.2d 718 (1975).
Under no circumstances could the terse denial of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Petro v. Town of W. Warwick
-
Krikor S. Dulgarian Trust v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Providence
...for variances and special exceptions. Franco v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Smithfield, 90 R.I. 210, 156 A.2d 914 (1959). For example, in Zammarelli v. Beattie, our Supreme Court concluded that the petition, which erroneously stated that it was for a variance rather than a setback modification,......
-
Ray Reedy, Inc. v. Town of North Kingstown
... ... duty to resolve evidentiary conflicts and determine the ... credibility of the witnesses before it. See Zammarelli v ... Beattie , 459 A.2d 951, 953 (R.I. 1983) ("under no ... circumstances could the terse denial of petitioners' ... application, ... ...