West v. McDonald
2011 R.I. LEXIS 53
R.I.2011Background
- West sought to subdivide three parcels in East Providence R-4 to build three 2-family dwellings (six units) on minimum 8,750 sq ft lots; density limit in the comprehensive plan capped at 5.8 units/acre; zoning required 8,750 sq ft per two-family dwelling; plan proposed to reconfigure lot lines to create three compliant lots.
- Planning Board considered minor subdivision after initial review; zoning officer approved minor subdivision, planning board recommended conditional approval; later Planning Board and then Board of Appeals denied West’s subdivision for not conforming to the comprehensive plan density limits.
- Comprehensive plan density constraint argued to control over zoning; City amended plan and zoning to attempt consistency but density limits remained more restrictive than zoning area requirements; West argued zoning should prevail.
- Trial court affirmed Board of Appeals’ denial; West sought certiorari arguing CPLURA conformity deadline was mandatory and that zoning controlled; Court granted review to resolve whether comprehensive plan controls use despite zoning.
- Court ultimately held CPLURA eighteen-month conformity requirement is directory, not mandatory; comprehensive plan and zoning are to be reconciled, with the plan not automatically controlling if not in the same terms as zoning; substantial obligations of equitable estoppel not established; denial of West’s subdivision affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the eighteen-month conformity requirement is mandatory. | West: requirement mandatory; failure to conform nullifies the plan. | East Providence: requirement is directory; no sanction for delay. | Directory; not mandatory |
| Whether the comprehensive plan controls when it conflicts with the zoning ordinance. | West: zoning should control due to plan’s non-mirroring language. | East Providence: plan and zoning operate together; plan governs density, not zone area. | Comprehensive plan controls when density limits conflict with zoning, supporting denial of West’s proposal. |
| Whether the comprehensive plan and zoning code can be reconciled. | Plan’s density limit should be overridden by zoning area standards. | Code and plan serve different purposes but must be read together; inconsistency resolved by statutory scheme. | Plan and zoning must be reconciled; the proposal failed to satisfy the plan, so denial proper. |
| Whether equitable estoppel bars denial of subdivision. | West relied on existing zoning and subdivision regulations. | No reliance satisfying estoppel; changes to plan and zoning not a blanket guarantee. | Equitable estoppel not established; agency failures cannot create a right to grandfathered use. |
| Whether the plan or zoning governs in a two-provision regulatory clash under §19-8 and §19-3. | Plan should override zoning in conflicts. | Code and plan both binding; §19-8 and §19-3 support enforcement of plan’s goals. | Zoning ordinance and plan must be interpreted within the statutory framework; no error in denying subdivision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of East Greenwich v. Narragansett Elec. Co., 651 A.2d 725 (R.I. 1994) (timeframe regulations generally directory; public policy considerations)
- New England Development, LLC v. Berg, 913 A.2d 363 (R.I. 2007) (time requirements in administrative action can be directory)
- Providence Teachers Union v. McGovern, 113 R.I. 169, 319 A.2d 358 (R.I. 1974) (procedural time limits often directory; focus on overall statutory purpose)
- Tantimonaco v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Johnston, 102 R.I. 594, 232 A.2d 385 (R.I. 1967) (estoppel and reliance in zoning context distinguished)
- Shalvey v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Warwick, 99 R.I. 692, 210 A.2d 589 (R.I. 1965) (reliance-based limits on zoning appeals; equitable considerations)
- Almeida v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Tiverton, 606 A.2d 1318 (R.I. 1992) (municipal authority to nullify improper building permits consistent with zoning)
- East Bay Cmty. Dev. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Barrington, 901 A.2d 1136 (R.I. 2006) (comprehensive plan as binding framework guiding zoning decisions)
- Sorenson v. Colibri Corp., 650 A.2d 125 (R.I. 1994) (considered in statutory construction context of plans and regulations)