The Preservation Society of Newport County v. City Council of the City of Newport
155 A.3d 688
| R.I. | 2017Background
- Petitioners (The Preservation Society of Newport County and Newport Catering/Glorious Affairs) applied jointly for victualing licenses to sell pre‑wrapped, off‑site prepared food, snacks, and nonalcoholic drinks to ticketed guests at two historic Newport mansions (The Elms Carriage House and Marble House Tea House). They agreed there would be no kitchen facilities or table service on the premises.
- Several city officials (fire marshal, building official, zoning enforcement officer) provided written approval; the zoning officer testified the proposed use was a permitted accessory use to a museum under the zoning code.
- At the City Council hearing councilors raised zoning concerns and questioned the zoning officer’s interpretation; the zoning officer advised the Council that zoning determinations were not its role and could be appealed to the Zoning Board.
- Petitioners’ counsel argued the Council could only deny victualing licenses for health and safety reasons under Newport Ordinance § 5.72.020; petitioners presented witnesses addressing health and safety. Public commenters raised traffic and economic concerns.
- The Council voted 4–3 to deny the licenses; the written denial was a one‑sentence letter with no findings of fact or legal conclusions identifying the grounds for denial.
- Petitioners obtained certiorari review in the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which granted relief and ordered the Council to issue licenses unless compelling health or safety evidence justified denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City Council exceeded its jurisdiction by relying on zoning considerations when denying victualing licenses | Petitioners: Council may consider only health and safety per § 5.72.020; zoning is not a permissible basis for denial | Council/intervenor: zoning considerations relevant; proposed use may not be a permitted accessory use in residential zoning | Court: Council improperly entertained zoning issues; zoning determinations are not the Council’s role in victualing license decisions and cannot substitute for health/safety grounds |
| Whether the Council provided legally sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its denial | Petitioners: Council failed to state the factual and legal basis for denial; record lacks meaningful health/safety evidence | Council: (implicit) vote and hearing suffice; concerns expressed by councilors justified denial | Court: Reversed—Council’s one‑sentence denial and transcript do not supply required findings; administrative quasi‑judicial bodies must make findings to permit judicial review; denial quashed and remanded with direction to issue licenses absent compelling health/safety evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent County Water Authority v. State (Department of Health), 723 A.2d 1132 (R.I. 1999) (scope of certiorari review is limited to questions in the petition)
- Cullen v. Town Council of Lincoln, 850 A.2d 900 (R.I. 2004) (municipal councils acting quasi‑judicially must make findings of fact and conclusions of law)
- Thorpe v. Zoning Board of Review of North Kingstown, 492 A.2d 1236 (R.I. 1985) (findings are necessary to allow meaningful judicial review)
- Cranston Print Works Co. v. City of Cranston, 684 A.2d 689 (R.I. 1996) (councils must state the legal basis for administrative decisions)
- Sambo’s of Rhode Island, Inc. v. McCanna, 431 A.2d 1192 (R.I. 1981) (council determinations require supporting findings beyond a motion and vote)