Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004

Home

Page 2 -- May 10, 2004 7..5. Restrictive Covenant -- Zoning code allows daycare; covenant does not Property owner claims zoning code trumps covenant Citation: Martellini v. Little Angels Day Care inc., Supreme Cottrt of Rhode £slan& No. 2002-597- Appeal (2004) RHODE [SL,&ND (03/18/04) --Little Angels Day Care Inc. was a family daycare home operated from a family residence. It cared for no more than eight chil- dren and was housed in the basement and a fenced~in yard. Little ,Angels appt/ed for a town license to operate a bus/ness. Several neigh- bors opposed the issuance of the license, claiming such a business would vio- late a restrictive covenant recorded in their residential subdivision. Little Angels remained in operation while the town council considered the matter. However, no vote was ever taken. The restrictive covenant stated "premises shall be used solely and exclu- sively for single family private residence purposes." Martelhni, a neighboring property owner, sued to enforce the restrictive covenant prohibiting businesses in the subdivision. The court ruled in favor of Little Angels, finding the zoning ordinance allowed and encouraged family day care homes in residential areas. Martell/nj appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The terms of the zoning ordinance could not trump the force and effect of the restrictive covenant. A 1991 zoning ordinance permitted family daycare homes in all residen- tial zones. The ordinance made a deliberate distinction between family daycare homes comprising no more than eight children and larger daycare centers that were not given the same permissive placement in residential districts. However, the legislature enacted no provisions voiding any covenants that prohibited businesses in residential subdivisions, including family daycare homes. A zoning ordinance could not destroy the force and effect of a restric- tive covenant. Thus, Little Angels was bound by the terms of the restrictive covenant on its property, whether it was a generally permitted daycare home or not. see also: Johnson v. Newiport Count.. ChapterJbr Retarded Citigens Inc., 799 A.Jd 289 (2002). see also: Ridge;veer Homeowners Association v. Mignacca, 8]3 A. 2d '965 (2003). ~ me~tt "regu:lafi'.;O, ns-in our' c.0rmty~. :Lnd~ed~:i't:,is":qm:t~.:usefUti:.ifo?.. 'S.o':.:mang-'oaa~:,.':I iS.StieS, as wefS' '". '~ .:' .?: ."--~i' ::". :::J:.~'..:: ':;": ,, J'..i, :.:. [ · ' · ' :. ' . ' ' :: :.: .. '.2;'- :"'':'"':'-..~;:' :. ':t":.-';. :: ....--;::::": 80 cO 2004 Qumlan 9u~lish~ng &'out). ,Any reoroduct~on is prohibited. For more iniormalion please ,:alt (617) $42:0048.