80 A.3d 864
R.I.2013Background
- Owner of 9.09-acre parcel east of Chopmist Hill Road in Scituate; deed described land as two lots on an 1848 plat but town maps (1965) treated parcel as a single lot.
- 1983 zoning board granted a 50-foot strip to neighbors (Raponis) for access; petitioner later obtained access through that strip to build a house.
- 2006 plan commission subdivided the parcel into two lots (Plat 35, Lot 24 improved; Lot 65 unimproved), creating a landlocked unimproved lot.
- 2008 building official denied a permit for the unimproved lot due to lack of street frontage; petitioner appealed to zoning board.
- Zoning board (and trial court) upheld the frontage requirement and denied a variance; court denied certiorari relief, leading to Supreme Court review.
- Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court judgment, remanding for a new hearing treating unimproved lot as a separate lot and removing frontage requirements on that permit application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unimproved lot ever merged with the improved lot. | Iadevaia contends no merger occurred; two lots always existed. | Zoning board and plan commission treated as single parcel; merger implied by practice. | Merger must be shown by affirmative act or ordinance; absence of merger evidence requires revocation of estoppel. |
| Whether judicial estoppel was properly applied to bar merger arguments. | Trial court abused discretion by applying judicial estoppel to deny two-lot history. | Court acted to prevent inconsistent positions from misleading previous determinations. | Judicial estoppel was improperly applied; it should not bar the two-lot history under these facts. |
| Whether the RR-120 district imposes a frontage requirement. | Frontage not required; ordinance lacks frontage language for RR-120. | Board interpreted lot width to require frontage; two definitions conjoined imply frontage. | Frontage is not required in RR-120; plain reading omits frontage in this district. |
| Whether petitioner is entitled to dimensional relief for the landlocked unimproved lot. | As two-lot history exists, hardship exists and relief should be granted. | Hardship created by petitioner’s 2006 subdivision; relief not warranted. | Remand to treat unimproved lot as separate; deny frontage-based relief but allow legitimate relief consistent with new hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pascalides v. Zoning Board of Review of Cranston, 97 R.I. 364, 197 A.2d 747 (R.I. 1964) (judicial estoppel in zoning contexts to prevent inconsistent positions)
- D&H Therapy Associates v. Murray, 821 A.2d 691 (R.I. 2003) (application of judicial estoppel in legal proceedings)
- Gaumond v. Trinity Repertory Co., 909 A.2d 512 (R.I. 2006) (recognition of judicial estoppel and evidence weight)
- Lead Industries Association, Inc. v. State, 69 A.3d 1304 (R.I. 2013) (standard for applying judicial estoppel; unfair advantage concerns)
- Pawtucket Transfer Operations, LLC v. City of Pawtucket, 944 A.2d 855 (R.I. 2008) (standard of review for substantial evidence in zoning)
- von Bernuth v. Zoning Board of Review of New Shoreham, 770 A.2d 396 (R.I. 2001) (substantial evidence review balancing)
- Sanfilippo v. Board of Review of Middletown, 96 R.I. 17, 188 A.2d 464 (R.I. 1963) (plat map references and deed descriptions in lot determinations)