Opinion ID: 1923882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Confiscation

Text: To put this issue in its proper perspective, we should take a before-and-after view of the status of Golden Gate's and Butterfield's properties. Golden Gate owns a 238-acre parcel of land known as Canonchet Farm. The property is located opposite The Pier and the Town Beach areas of Narragansett. Most of the property was zoned for residential use with each single-family dwelling lot to have a minimum of 15,000 square feet and a two-family dwelling lot required 30,000 square feet. A small portion of the parcel was zoned for commercial purposes. Under the new ordinance all of Canonchet Farm is located in an R-40 Rural Residence District. Each single-family dwelling lot in such a district must contain a minimum area of 40,000 square feet. Today a two-family structure placed in an R-40 district must be situated on a lot having at least 80,000 square feet. In 1971 Butterfield purchased water front property known as Lido's Beach. It is a rectangularly shaped undeveloped parcel measuring approximately 10 ½ acres. It has a frontage of nearly 900 feet on the shore and measures about 600 feet in depth between the ocean and a public highway parallel to the lot. The land was zoned for business, a classification which permitted a variety of uses, including commercial greenhouses or nurseries, churches, hospitals, hotels, motels, and government buildings. Lido's Beach now finds itself in a B-C Waterfront Business District, a designation which eliminates the bulk of the previously accepted uses and restricts the property to such uses as a greenhouse not used for private commercial gain, the sale of handcrafted or home crafted products made on the premises provided that the merchandise is not displayed outside the structure, a public park or playground, a bathing beach, an outdoor swimming pool, a place of worship, a fire or police station, commercial recreation purposes, plus several uses permitted by way of special exception. The specially permitted uses include a motel, hotel, electric power substation, public utility tower, and marina. The petitioners' claims of confiscation remind us of the well-established rule which holds that an existing zoning classification of property in and of itself confers no vested right in the continuance of such classification because all property is subject to a municipality's exercise of its police power. See Norbeck Village Joint Venture v. Montgomery County Council, 254 Md. 59, 66, 254 A.2d 700, 705 (1969); Thomas v. Town of Bedford, 11 N.Y.2d 428, 434, 230 N.Y.S.2d 684, 687-88, 184 N.E.2d 285, 287 (1962); Gosselin v. City of Nashua, 114 N.H. 447, 450, 321 A.2d 593, 596 (1974); Gray v. Trustees of Monclova Township, 38 Ohio St.2d 310, 315, 313 N.E.2d 366, 369 (1974); Edelbeck v. Theresa, 57 Wis.2d 172, 180, 203 N.W. 2d 694, 698 (1973). A zoning ordinance is not to be considered as confiscatory merely because the property may not be put to its most profitable use. 1 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, § 6.04 at 6-9 (4th ed. 1975). The special enabling legislation which gives Narragansett the authority to enact zoning legislation follows the general rule in that it specifically provides that nothing in the Act or any ordinance adopted pursuant to its provisions shall create any vested rights in any person, firm, or corporation. Public Laws 1928, ch. 1277, § 7. The general enabling legislation by which most municipalities in this state enact zoning legislation contains a similar provision. General Laws 1956 (1970 Reenactment) § 45-24-11; see Nardi v. City of Providence, 89 R.I. 437, 446, 153 A.2d 136, 141 (1959). The confiscation issue which petitioners have raised cannot be resolved in these certiorari proceedings. The petitioners may pursue this question by seeking the assistance of equity. However, such an observation may be of no immediate assistance to petitioners if the rule requiring a litigant to exhaust his administrative remedies before he seeks equitable relief is applicable to these proceedings. This principle of exhaustion of remedies was adhered to in the Nardi case. Later, in Frank Ansuini, Inc. v. City of Cranston, 107 R.I. 63, 73, 264 A.2d 910, 915-16 (1970), we pointed out that there is no need to seek administrative relief where the basis of the suit is the contention that the ordinance is invalid on its face. There is a reasonable basis for this distinction. A litigant's contention that the ordinance is unconstitutional in its application to his specific property could result in a needless judicial declaration if an application to the zoning board seeking a variance or exception met with success. However, there is no reasonable basis for forestalling a judicial inquiry when the challenge is made that the ordinance is unconstitutional not as it is applied to any particular property but in its general pattern and effect. Resort to administrative relief in those circumstances would only delay a judicial determination of those issues which of necessity must be resolved in court rather than at the administrative level. With these principles in mind, we have examined both petitions, and it is clear that in each the contention that is being made is that the 1974 zoning ordinance is unconstitutional only as it is applied to each respective parcel of real estate. This being so, the petitioners are bound to exhaust their administrative remedy, and, if unsuccessful there, they may then seek judicial assistance. In each case the petition for certiorari is denied and dismissed, the writ previously issued is quashed, and the record is remanded to the respondent town council with our decision endorsed thereon. DORIS, J., did not participate.