DocketNumber: C.A. No.: PC-08-3180
Judges: GIBNEY, J.
Filed Date: 1/28/2009
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Due exclusively to a lack of sufficient frontage, both lots are substandard lots of record. In shape, each lot resembles a frying pan, with the narrow handle portion of the lots abutting the street. The respective frontages of each lot are noncontiguous, but are 104.36 feet apart due to the presence of Tax Assessor's Plat 13C, Lot 24. Currently, Lot 21 contains two single-family dwellings, while Lot 23 remains vacant.
In a letter dated November 12, 2007, the Appellant's attorney requested that the Zoning Officer determine whether Lots 21 and 23 merged by operation of law pursuant to § 32-82 of the Warren Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance). The Appellant ultimately wants to obtain a building permit to build a single-family home on Lot 23. In a letter dated November 26, 2007, the Zoning Officer replied as follows:
*Page 3Your client, Mr. Fisher, owns or has an agreement to own lots 21 and 23. . . . The merger requirement applies "to all adjacent land under the same ownership. . . ." Lot 21 has fifteen feet of frontage and Lot 23 has ten feet of frontage. Neither of these lots meets the minimum lot frontage requirement in an R-10 zoning district. Per Section 32-82 he [sic] lots merge resulting in a lot with twenty-five feet of frontage. Although not contiguous, the frontage may be added together yet the lot still does not meet the ninety feet minimum lot frontage requirement in an R-10 zoning district. A Special Use Permit from the Warren Zoning Board is required to "unmerge" these lots in order to develop lot 23. Letter from William J. Nash, Jr., Zoning Officer, Town of Warren, to Bruce H. Cox, Esq., Slepkow, Slepkow Associates, Inc. (Nov. 26, 2007).
The Appellant appealed the Zoning Officer's determination to the Board pursuant to §
On April 28, 2008, the Appellant filed a complaint in this Court timely appealing the decision of the Board. On May 7, 2008, the Appellant filed an amended complaint. An audio recording of the zoning board hearing has been provided.
*Page 4The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board of review as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the board of review 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, or ordinance provisions;
(2) In excess of the authority granted to the zoning board of review 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.
When reviewing a decision of a zoning board, a justice of the superior court may "not substitute [his or her] judgment for that of the zoning board if [he or she] conscientiously find[s] that the board's decision was supported by substantial evidence." Apostolou v. Genovesi,
It is well-settled that the scope of nonconforming uses should be strictly construed because they are viewed "as detrimental to a zoning scheme, and the overriding public policy of zoning . . . is aimed at their reasonable restriction and eventual elimination." *Page 5 Town of Richmond v. Wawaloam Reservation, Inc.,
Furthermore, "[s]ubstandard contiguous lots cannot be developed as individual nonconforming lots unless the landowner applies for a variance or an exception." Id. However, where a "landowner owns any adjacent lots that, if combined, would satisfy the square-footage requirements, then the landowner is not entitled to the exception."Id. at 356. As a result, "[t]he landowner therefore must merge the lots to form a single parcel of land that will meet the area requirements."Id.
Merger, or the combining of substandard lots, is "a valid zoning mechanism governed by the provisions of G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) chapter 24 of title 45." Brum v. Conley,
The Town of Warren has enacted a merger provision, § 32-82. In pertinent part, § 32-82 states, "where adjacent land is in the same ownership, such lot shall be combined with adjacent land to form a lot of the required dimensions and area, or to decrease the degree ofnon-conformity where the required area and dimensions cannot beachieved." (Emphasis added). It is not disputed that Lots 21 and 23 are adjacent lots in the same ownership or that merging the two lots will not "form a lot of the required dimensions and area."3 However, at issue is whether merging Lots 21 and 23 will "decrease the degree of non-conformity," with the Board finding that merger will decrease the degree of non-conformity, and the Appellant arguing that it will not.
The Board upheld the Zoning Officer's determination that merging Lots 21 and 23 would decrease the degree of non-conformity from 80 (Lot 23) to 65 because the merged lot would have 25 feet of frontage, as opposed to Lot 23's 10 feet of frontage. The Appellant argues that there is no legal basis to support the Zoning Officer's determination that the noncontiguous frontage of Lots 21 and 23 should be added together to arrive at 25 feet of frontage. Thus, the Appellant argues that merging the lots will not "decrease the degree of non-conformity" because noncontiguous frontage should not be added together.
Section
This Court reviews issues of statutory interpretation de novo.See Palazzolo v. State ex rel. Tavares,
Under Rhode Island law, courts "resolve all doubts and ambiguities contained in the zoning laws in favor of the landowner because these regulations are in derogation of the property owner's common-law right to use her property as she wishes." Denomme v. Mowry,
In Rhode Island, "[o]ur process of statutory construction further involves a ``practice of construing and applying apparently inconsistent statutory provisions in such a manner so as to avoid the inconsistency.'" Kells v. Town of Lincoln,
Here, § 32-130 of the Ordinance, which defines lot frontage, is ambiguous because it is unclear whether noncontiguous frontage should be added in determining minimum lot frontage. See §
Most towns and cities in Rhode Island do not add noncontiguous frontage when determining minimum lot frontage, but rather have ordinances which state, "where all lot frontage is not contiguous, thenonly the largest single portion of such lot frontage will beconsidered with regard to minimum frontage requirements." See,e.g., The Zoning Ordinances of the City of East Providence, the Town of Cumberland, the Town of Little Compton, the City of West Warwick (emphasis added). To date, no town or city has adopted an ordinance stating that noncontiguous frontage should be added together to determine minimum lot frontage.
The principal purpose of a frontage requirement is to ensure reasonable access to the lot from the street for fire and other emergency vehicles. See 3 Arden H. Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning andPlanning, § 53:22 (2008). In its Decision, the Board found that it had never issued a building permit for a lot with less than 20 feet of frontage because of public safety concerns. (¶ 10.) For example, the largest single portion would have to be large enough to provide access from the street to emergency vehicles. To avoid construing the zoning ordinance "to reach an absurd result," see Flores,
However, even if frontage is the largest single portion, Lots 21 and 23 still merge by operation of law because the merger of Lots 21 and 23 will still decrease the degree of non-conformity. Individually, Lot 23 had 10 feet of frontage, and Lot 21 had 15 feet of frontage in a zone which required 90 feet. By merging Lot 23 with Lot 21, the new merged lot will have two noncontiguous portions of frontage: 10 feet and 15 feet. Because 15 feet is larger than 10 feet, the new lot will have frontage of 15 feet. This merger will decrease the degree of non-conformity of Lot 23 from 80 feet to 75 feet, because whereas before Lot 23 had 10 feet of frontage, now the merged lot has 15 feet of frontage. See Warren Zoning Ordinance art. XIV, § 32-82 (Sept. 9, 2003). Lots 21 and 23 merged by operation of law. Accordingly, the Board's decision concluding that Lots 21 and 23 merged by operation of law is not affected by error of law and is not clearly erroneous.
This conclusion is consistent with the underlying purpose of merger which is "to decrease congestion in the streets and to prevent overcrowding of land by limiting the number of new dwellings built in the residential districts." See Brum,
Counsel shall submit the appropriate judgment for entry.
Palazzolo v. State Ex Rel. Tavares , 2000 R.I. LEXIS 50 ( 2000 )
Denomme v. Mowry , 1989 R.I. LEXIS 88 ( 1989 )
State v. Flores , 1998 R.I. LEXIS 224 ( 1998 )
Town of Richmond v. Wawaloam Reservation, Inc. , 2004 R.I. LEXIS 98 ( 2004 )
Apostolou v. Genovesi , 120 R.I. 501 ( 1978 )
Kells v. Town of Lincoln , 2005 R.I. LEXIS 109 ( 2005 )
Montaquila v. St. Cyr , 1981 R.I. LEXIS 1246 ( 1981 )
Taft v. Zoning Board of Review , 75 R.I. 117 ( 1949 )
Caswell v. George Sherman Sand & Gravel Co. , 1981 R.I. LEXIS 1021 ( 1981 )
Mongony v. Bevilacqua , 1981 R.I. LEXIS 1224 ( 1981 )
Labor Ready Northeast, Inc. v. McConaghy , 2004 R.I. LEXIS 104 ( 2004 )
Lischio v. Zoning Board of Review of North Kingstown , 2003 R.I. LEXIS 57 ( 2003 )
R.J.E.P. Associates v. Hellewell , 1989 R.I. LEXIS 128 ( 1989 )
Dedering v. Johnson , 307 Minn. 313 ( 1976 )
City of Providence v. O'NEILL , 1982 R.I. LEXIS 867 ( 1982 )
Skelley v. Zoning Board of Review , 1990 R.I. LEXIS 32 ( 1990 )
McKendall v. Town of Barrington , 1990 R.I. LEXIS 54 ( 1990 )
Brum v. Conley , 1990 R.I. LEXIS 76 ( 1990 )
Henderson v. Henderson , 818 A.2d 669 ( 2003 )
Retirement Board of Employees' Retirement System v. DiPrete , 2004 R.I. LEXIS 61 ( 2004 )