Newport Electric Corp. v. Town of Portsmouth

Citations: 650 A.2d 489; 1994 R.I. LEXIS 290; 1994 WL 677815Docket: 93-205-M.P., 93-207-M.P.

Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island; December 5, 1994; Rhode Island; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case concerns a conflict between Newport Electric Corporation and the Town of Portsmouth regarding the rezoning of certain parcels of land from Heavy Industry to Residential R-20. Following Portsmouth's decision to rezone thirty-seven lots, Newport Electric petitioned the Public Utilities Commission of Rhode Island to invalidate the rezoning, claiming it would hinder their ability to maintain utility operations. The commission ruled in favor of Newport for lot No. 5, reverting it back to Heavy Industry, but upheld the Residential R-20 status for lots 6 through 9. Both Newport and Portsmouth subsequently filed petitions for certiorari to review the commission's decisions. Newport contested the affirmation of the Residential R-20 zoning for lots 6 through 9, while Portsmouth challenged the reversal of lot No. 5's zoning. The court consolidated the petitions for review. Ultimately, the petitions for certiorari were denied, affirming the commission's orders.

The court's review of the commission's decisions is governed by statute 39-5-1, focusing on the legality and reasonableness of the commission's findings, which must be supported by legal evidence and be specific enough for review. The court has a limited scope of review, acting as an appellate body rather than a factfinder, and must accept the commission's findings as prima facie true under section 39-5-3. The commission's authority includes reviewing all ordinances affecting utility operations and considering their impact on public health, safety, and welfare.

In the case of the rezoning of lot No. 5, Portsmouth claimed the commission erred in reversing the rezoning, asserting minimal impact on Newport. The commission maintained its decision was within statutory authority and supported by substantial evidence. Newport's testimony indicated the potential need for lot No. 5 for future utility operations, which Portsmouth did not contest. The commission found Newport's witness credible and concluded that Portsmouth's rezoning would affect Newport’s utility operations and public convenience. The court can only overturn the commission's order if it acted illegally, arbitrarily, or unreasonably, and in this instance, it upheld the commission's decision based on the evidence presented.

The rezoning of lot No. 5 has been reversed due to diminished benefits, with the commission's decision deemed valid as it was supported by substantial testimony and did not act 'illegally, arbitrarily or unreasonably.' The commission's decision to sustain the rezoning of lots No. 6 through 9 is affirmed, despite Newport's claims that it was adversely affected and that the rezoning did not conform to Portsmouth's Comprehensive Community Plan. Portsmouth argued that the commission lacked authority to invalidate the rezoning of privately owned lots not involved in the proceedings. The commission maintained that the rezoning did not impact Newport's utility operations, thus falling outside its jurisdiction to review the ordinance's compliance with the Community Plan.

Newport's concerns regarding potential electromagnetic field (EMF) effects from proposed power lines were deemed unpersuasive, primarily based on insufficient evidence presented at the hearing, including the absence of the property owner of lots 6 through 9. Consequently, the commission's findings were upheld as adequately supported by legal evidence. The petitions for certiorari have been denied, and the prior writs have been quashed, with the commission's orders regarding the rezoning of lot No. 5 reversed and lots No. 6 through 9 sustained. The case is remanded to the commission for further proceedings. Justice Murray did not participate in the decision.