Reynolds v. Town of Jamestown
2012 R.I. LEXIS 83
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Lot 733, between the bay and Lot 299, was created in 1966 from Old Lot 297, now Lot 733 and Lot 297.
- Lot 733 has no street frontage but access via two preexisting rights-of-way connecting to Walcott Avenue.
- When Lot 733 was created, the rights-of-way existed and were part of the conveyances to plaintiffs, who reserved access rights.
- In 1990s-2000s, town zoning officials questioned legality, with Brown asserting Lot 733 created without street frontage, constituting an illegal subdivision.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief that Lot 733 was lawful under 1966 regulations; trial court held it was not a subdivision.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Lot 733 was not a subdivision; cautioned it is not a declared buildable lot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lot 733 constitutes a subdivision under 1966 Jamestown regs | Reynolds argues preexisting easements supply access; no new street required. | Sugarman requires a street when division reduces access or necessitates public road access. | Not a subdivision; existing easements provided sufficient access |
| Whether the preexisting rights-of-way meet the statutory definition of street in 1966 | Rights-of-way function as streets under 1966 regulations. | Rights-of-way are unimproved and insufficient for welfare and safety. | Rights-of-way satisfied the 1966 street requirement |
| Standard of review for declaratory judgment under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act | Abuse of discretion standard governs; substantial evidence supports legality of Lot 733. | Trial court misapplied law by focusing on Sugarman over literal text. | Court reviews de novo statutory interpretation but defers to factual findings |
| Impact of the decision on buildability and future development of Lot 733 | Lot 733 access via existing rights-of-way suffices; no need for new street. | Regulations require street frontage for subdivision implications and future development. | Affirmed judgment; cautioned Lot 733 is not a declared buildable lot |
Key Cases Cited
- Sugarman v. Lewis, 488 A.2d 709 (R.I. 1985) (subdivision where creation circumvents regs; welfare concerns trigger street requirement)
- Denomme v. Mowry, 557 A.2d 1229 (R.I. 1989) (literal subdivision definition requires new street)
- Town of Coventry v. Glickman, 429 A.2d 440 (R.I. 1981) (same interpretation of subdivision statutes with street provision)
- Murphy v. Zoning Board of Review of South Kingstown, 959 A.2d 535 (R.I. 2008) (interpretation of subdivision regulation at time of lot creation)