Ronald Perkins and Louis Fichera v. Kimberly J. Taylor, et als.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
KENT, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
[Filed: March 27, 2024]
RONALD PERKINS and
LOUIS FICHERA
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Appellants,
v. C.A. No. KC-2021-1012
KIMBERLY J. TAYLOR and
CHRISTOPHER COLE; TOWN OF
COVENTRY, COVENTRY ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS; ROBERT
CROWE, MEMBER; RUSSELL
LACAILLADE, MEMBER;
EDWARD IANNOTTI, MEMBER;
KEITH CLOUTIER, MEMBER;
LEONARD DOEG, MEMBER;
MICHAEL NEW, MEMBER
Appellees.
DECISION
McHUGH, J. Before this Court for decision is the appeal of Ronald Perkins and Louis Fichera
(Appellants) from a decision of the Coventry Zoning Board of Review (the Board). The Board
rendered its decision on September 1, 2021 and ratified its written decision on October 6, 2021.
The Board approved Christopher Cole’s (Mr. Cole) and Kimberly J. Taylor’s (Ms. Taylor)
(collectively referred to as Shed Owners) application for a dimensional variance and a special use
permit. (Pls.’ Mem. Ex. Decision on Application (Decision), at 2.) The Board granted a
dimensional variance and a special use permit allowing Mr. Cole and Ms. Taylor to build a new
shed on their property located at 68 Acres of Pine Road in Coventry, Rhode Island (the Property).

2
Id. at 4. This Court has jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision pursuant to G.L. 1956
§ 45-24-69.
I
Facts and Travel
A
Coventry Department of Planning and Development Report
1
Report Background and Shed Owners’ Proposal
On June 23, 2021, the Town of Coventry Department of Planning and Development
(Department) sent a letter to the Board. (Defs.’ Mem. Ex. C (Letter), at 1.) The Department also
attached a staff report (the Report) with their June 23, 2021 letter. (Defs.’ Mem. Ex. B (Report),
at 1.) The Report’s background section explains that Mr. Cole and Ms. Taylor applied to the Board
regarding the issuance of a special use permit and a dimensional variance pursuant to the Town of
Coventry’s (Coventry) Code of Zoning Ordinances (Coventry Code). Id. at 1-2. The real property
is located at 68 Acres of Pine Road in Coventry, Rhode Island and is designated as Assessor’s Plat
318, Lot 36. Id. at 1. The Report describes the Property as having a zoning designation in the RR2
Rural Residential zone. Id. The Report describes the parcel as being 0.13 acres in size with fifty-
five feet of frontage, noting that the lot is “severely undersized for the zone.” Id.
The background section of the Report further notes that “[t]he size of the lot and the
location of the existing house limits the potential locations for a shed.” Id. at 1-2. According to
the Report, the Property “previously had a shed in the front yard for many years.” Id. at 2. The
Report also states that the Shed Owners, “wanted to replace the old, dilapidated shed with a new

3
one[,]” and that it was made known to the Shed Owners that they would have to get a dimensional
variance and a special use permit for the structure. Id.
According to the Report, the Shed Owners were proposing a twelve foot by twenty-three
foot by ten foot shed in their front yard. Id. The Report reflects the Shed Owners’ wishes to finish
building their new shed in the same location as their old shed. Id. According to the Report, “[t]he
proposal is to place the shed 2 feet from the side property line where 10 feet is required.” Id. The
Report notes that according to the Shed Owners’ application, the Shed Owners will need both a
dimensional variance for the side yard setback, and a special use permit for the placement of the
shed in the front yard. Id. The Report also recognizes that the Shed Owners’ shed requires a
dimensional variance of eight feet. Id. at 3.
2
Report’s Findings and Recommendation
While analyzing the criteria to consider the dimensional variance pursuant to the Coventry
Code, the Report makes the following determinations. In analyzing criteria under Article IV
Section 454(A) as to whether the hardship from the Shed Owners is due to the characteristics of
the land, the area, or the physical or economic disability of the Shed Owners the Report states:
“The relief needed is due to the unique characteristics of the land.
The property is severely undersized, leaving few places to put the
shed. The house is too close to the property line to place the shed in
either side yard and an elevation change makes it impossible to place
the shed in the rear yard near the pond. The front yard is the most
logical location for the shed.
“The dimensional variance for the house is not related to the
characteristics of the surrounding residential neighborhood.
“The applicants make no claim of physical or economic disability.”
(Report at 3-4.)

4
In analyzing criteria under Article IV Section 454(B) as to whether the hardship is from
the result of any of the Shed Owners’ prior action or a desire for greater financial gain the Report
states: “It does not appear that there is any hardship created by the prior action of the applicants.
The application appears to be motivated by the applicants’ desire for more storage and not by a
desire for financial gain.” Id. at 4.
In analyzing criteria under Article IV Section 454(C) as to whether the granting of the
variance will alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent of Coventry’s
Zoning Ordinance or Coventry’s Comprehensive Plan the Report states:
“The property is located in an area of developed, nonconforming
structures. Other lots in the area also have both principle [sic] and
accessory structure setbacks that are below standard. The proposed
shed will not alter the general character of the surrounding area.
“While any variance technically impairs the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance, the location of the proposed shed appears reasonable and
logical and would not appear to impair uses on the abutting
residential properties or result in over-development of the lot in
question.
This proposal would not increase residential density.” Id.
In analyzing criteria under Article IV Section 455(B) as to whether the hardship the Shed
Owners will suffer if the dimensional variance is not granted will be more than a mere
inconvenience, the Report states: “The hardship that the applicants would suffer in not being able
to build the shed as presented is more than a mere inconvenience. There is no other reasonable
alternatives to the location of the proposed shed.” Id.
While analyzing the criteria to consider the special use permit pursuant to the Coventry
Code, the Report makes the following determinations. In analyzing under Article IV Section
432(A) as to safe ingress and egress for vehicles the Report states, “[i]ngress and [e]gress to the
lot is provided via an existing drive with permanent physical access to Acres of Pine Road. The

5
proposed shed will not impede automotive or pedestrian safety, traffic flow, or access to the
property.” Id. at 5.
In analyzing under Article IV Section 432(B) as to the availability of off-street parking the
Report states, “[s]ufficient off-street parking is available on the property.” Id.
In analyzing under Article IV Section 432(C) as to adequate trash, storage and delivery
areas the Report states, “[t]here appears to be adequate trash storage for both the existing and
proposed uses.” Id.
In analyzing under Article IV Section 432(D) as to availability and location of utilities the
Report states, “[t]he available utilities should be adequate.” Id.
In analyzing under Article IV Section 432(E) as to the need for screening and buffering the
Report states, “[n]o screening or buffering is necessary.” Id.
In analyzing under Article IV Section 432(F) as to signs and exterior lighting the Report
states, “[n]o signs or exterior lighting are proposed.” Id.
In analyzing under Article IV Section 432(G) as to the required yards and open space the
Report states, “[t]his proposal satisfies the requirements for yards and open space where
applicable.” Id.
In analyzing under Article IV Section 432(H) as to general compatibility with abutting lots
the Report states, “[t]he lot size and residential use is compatible with the neighboring properties.”
Id.
In analyzing under Article IV Section 432(I) as to the compliance with industrial
performance standards under Article 7 of the Coventry Code the Report states, “[t]his is a
residential use; industrial performance standards are not applicable.” Id.

6
In analyzing under Article IV Section 432(J) as to general compatibility with Coventry’s
Comprehensive Plan the Report states, “[t]he proposal is consistent with the Coventry
Comprehensive Plan.” Id.
In analyzing under Article IV Section 432(K) as to whether granting of the special use
permit will create conditions inimical to public health, safety, welfare or morals the Report states,
“[t]he granting of the special-use permit will not affect the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood.” Id.
After analyzing all the aforementioned requirements of both a dimensional variance and a
special use permit, the Report recommended that the Board grant approval of the requested special
use permit and dimensional variance reasoning that “[t]he project does not appear unreasonable
given the existing conditions on-site and on abutting properties.” Id.
B
The Board’s Review
Prior to providing its written decision ratified on October 6, 2021, the Board conducted
two Zoning Board hearings—the first one on August 4, 2021, and the second on September 1,
2021.
1
Shed Owners’ Application to the Board
In their application to the Board, Shed Owners applied for both a special use permit under
Section 430 of the Coventry Code and a dimensional variance under Section 455B of the Coventry
Code. (Pls.’ Mem. Ex. Application to Zoning Board of Review (Application), at 2-3.) In their
application, Shed Owners stated that they were seeking the dimensional variance and the special
use permit to rebuild a shed in the same location as an old shed. Id. at 2. The application also

7
states that the new shed would be twelve feet wide by twenty-three feet long by ten feet high. Id.
at 2. The application also stated that the shed would be in the front yard because there is no room
in the backyard to place the new shed. Id. at 2-3. The application also states that the only available
placement for the new shed would be in the front yard two feet from the property line. Id. at 3.
2
August 4, 2021 Board Hearing
On August 4, 2021, the Board held a hearing where the Shed Owners presented their
application to the Board for it to review. During the hearing, the Board members questioned Mr.
Cole about the new shed. (Pls.’ Mem. Ex. August 4, 2021 Minutes of Hearing (August 4 Hearing),
at 8-10.) Mr. Cole testified that there was already a shed in the same location, and that the new
shed was two feet from the property line whereas the old shed was eighteen inches from the
property line. Id. at 8. Mr. Cole had already began constructing the new shed to replace the old
one; however, Coventry issued a cease and desist order for Mr. Cole to stop construction on the
new shed. Id. Mr. Cole told the Board that he wanted to construct the new shed for more storage.
Id. He also told the Board that the new shed is “a couple of feet bigger wider and longer[]” than
the old shed. Id. Mr. Cole stated that the old shed was rotting and that he did not have a foundation
under the new shed. Id. at 8-9. Mr. Cole was then asked about the shed’s location, and the Board
deemed that no other area would be suitable to place a shed because of an existing cesspool on the
Property and Mr. Cole’s desire to put in a leach field. Id. at 9.
Also present at the meeting was Cherrie Perkins representing the abutter’s rights of Ronald
Perkins and Luca Shera. Id. Ms. Perkins stated that the new shed is “much larger than the other
shed and its (sic) right next to the fence.” Id. Ms. Perkins also stated that the Shed Owners have a
large front yard and recommended that the shed be placed in the other yard saying that the shed is

8
a “huge structure and an eye sore.” Id. At the August 4, 2021 hearing, the Board voted to take the
Shed Owners’ request under advisement. Id. at 9-10.
3
September 1, 2021 the Board Hearing
On September 1, 2021, members of the Board discussed Shed Owners’ application for the
dimensional variance and for the special use permit. (Pls.’ Mem. Ex. September 1, 2021 Minutes
of Hearing (September 1 Hearing), at 4-5.) The Board members stated that the new shed is right
where the old shed was, stated that the new shed was already built, and stated that there are giant
trees and bushes behind the shed and that the old shed had been in the same location for a long
time. Id. at 4. The Board members also noted that the lot was small and there are not many places
where Shed Owners could place the new shed. Id. After considering all those and the previous
testimony, the Board voted to approve both the special use permit and the dimensional variance.
Id. at 4-5.
C
The Board’s Written Decision
On October 6, 2021, the Board ratified the decision for Shed Owners’ application for the
dimensional variance and the special use permit. See Decision, at 1. In Section I of the decision,
the Board summarized the testimony from the August 4, 2021 and September 1, 2021 hearings.
(Decision at 2.) Section I also states that “[b]etween the August 4 and September 1 hearings,
Members of the Board viewed the property.” Id.
In Section II of the Board’s decision, the Board stated the following findings of fact:
“Based upon materials provided with the application, the testimony
of the applicant and staff reports, the Board finds as follows:
“1. The Board accepted the applicant’s testimony and
materials submitted as credible and reliable;

9
“2. The Board reviewed and accepted the staff report as
credible and reliable;
“3. Board members were all familiar with the subject
property[.]” Id.
In Section III of the decision, the Board provided their conclusions of law as to the
dimensional variance based on the aforementioned facts. See id. at 3-4. As to the hardship due to
the land, the Board found that “the hardship is due to the location of the home on the lot, the
location of the driveway and the septic system.” Id. at 3. The Board also found that “[t]he relief
requested is not due to the physical or economic disability for the [Shed Owners].” Id. The Board
further found that “the hardship is due to the configuration of the lot and the existing home and the
location of the driveway and septic system and not the result of any prior action of the [Shed
Owners] and does not result primarily from the desire of the [Shed Owners] to realize greater
financial gain.” Id. The Board found that “the proposed shed, as presented, will not alter the
general character of the surrounding residential neighborhood or impair the intent or purpose of
[Coventry’s] Ordinance or the Coventry Comprehensive Plan.” Id. The Board further found that
“the requested relief is the least relief necessary based on the materials submitted.” Id. The Board
also found that “denying the variance would result in more than a mere inconvenience, which shall
mean that there is no other reasonable alternative to enjoy a legally permitted beneficial use.” Id.
at 4.
In Section IV of the decision, the Board provided their conclusions of law as to the special
use permit based on the aforementioned facts. Id. The Board found that the Shed Owners “required
a Special Use Permit as the existing lot is a nonconforming lot of record.” Id. The Board also
reasoned that it was able to utilize the findings of facts used in its dimensional variance analysis.
Id. The Board found that the Shed Owners “met [their] burden of proof and production on the

10
elements required to be established for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Art. IV, § 430 of the
Coventry Zoning Ordinance.” Id.
D
Appellate Travel
Shed Owners’ application seeking a special use permit and a dimensional variance first
appeared before the Department where the Department created the Report. The Department’s
recommendation then went before the Board. The Board then voted to grant the dimensional
variance and special use permit on September 1, 2021 (September 1 Hearing, at 4-5; Decision at
1), and ratified its written decision on October 6, 2021. (Decision at 1). After the Board’s approval
of both the special use permit and the dimensional variance, Appellants filed their Complaint with
this Court on November 23, 2021.
II
Standard of Review
When reviewing a decision by a local board, this Court must apply the law as it existed
“when the applicant-developer submitted its application . . . .” East Bay Community Development
Corporation v. Zoning Board of Review of Town of Barrington, 901 A.2d 1136, 1144 (R.I. 2006).
The 2021 version of § 45-24-69 of the Rhode Island Zoning Enabling Act governs this Court’s
review of a zoning board decision and provides in subsection (d) that:
“(d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning
board of review as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.
The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board of review or
remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify
the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been
prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions
which are:
“(1) In violation of constitutional, statutory, or ordinance
provisions;

11
“(2) In excess of the authority granted to the zoning board of
review by statute or ordinance;
“(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
“(4) Affected by other error of law;
“(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence of the whole record; or
“(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of
discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.”
Section 45-24-69(d).
“It is the function of the Superior Court to ‘examine the whole record to determine whether
the findings of the zoning board were supported by substantial evidence.’” Lloyd v. Zoning Board
of Review for City of Newport, 62 A.3d 1078, 1083 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Apostolou v. Genovesi,
120 R.I. 501, 507, 388 A.2d 821, 824 (1978)). “Substantial evidence is defined as ‘such relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and means an
amount more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.’” New Castle Realty Company v.
Dreczko, 248 A.3d 638, 643 (R.I. 2021) (quoting Iadevaia v. Town of Scituate Zoning Board of
Review, 80 A.3d 864, 870 (R.I. 2013)). The Court “gives deference to the findings of a local
zoning board of review” because it “‘is presumed to have knowledge concerning those matters
which are related to an effective administration of the zoning ordinance.’” Pawtucket Transfer
Operations, LLC v. City of Pawtucket, 944 A.2d 855, 859 (R.I. 2008) (quoting Monforte v. Zoning
Board of Review of City of East Providence, 93 R.I. 447, 449, 176 A.2d 726, 728 (1962)).
Nonetheless, “a zoning board’s determinations of law, like those of an administrative agency, ‘are
not binding on the reviewing court; they may be reviewed to determine what the law is and its
applicability to the facts.’” Freepoint Solar LLC v. Richmond Zoning Board of Review, 274 A.3d
1, 6 (R.I. 2022) (quoting Pawtucket Transfer Operations, LLC, 944 A.2d at 859).

12
III
Analysis
Appellants argue that the Board’s decision to grant Shed Owners’ special use permit was
not based on substantial evidence and argue that the Board’s decision is an improper conclusion
of law. See (Pls.’ Mem. at 1-5.) Shed Owners argue that the Board’s decision utilized substantial
evidence and that the decision granting the special use permit was proper. See (Defs.’ Mem. at
6-12.)
A
Dimensional Variance
In Coventry, “[t]he Board shall have the power to: . . . Grant a variance from the use
regulations or requirements of [the] chapter where application is made for reinstatement of a
nonconforming use.” Coventry Code, § 255-450(A)(2) (January 1, 2019). Along with the power
to grant a variance, the Coventry Code also details what the Board is to consider when granting a
variance:
“In granting a variance, the Board shall require that evidence to the
satisfaction of the following standards be entered into the record of
the proceedings:
“(1) That the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief
is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or
structure and not to the general characteristics of the
surrounding area; and is not due to a physical or economic
disability of the applicant;
“(2) That the hardship is not the result of any prior action of
the applicant and does not result primarily from the desire of
the applicant to realize greater financial gain;
“(3) That the granting of the requested variance will not alter
the general character of the surrounding area or impair the
intent or purpose of this chapter or the Coventry
Comprehensive Plan; and
“(4) That the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary.”
Section 255-450(D)(1)–(4).

13
Along with the standards, the Coventry Code states that the Board shall require that evidence
entered into the record of the proceedings show:
“(l) Granting of variances:
“(a) In granting a use variance the subject land or structure
cannot yield any beneficial use if it is required to conform to
the provisions of this chapter. Nonconforming use of
neighboring land or structures in the same district and
permitted use of lands or structures in an adjacent district
shall not be considered in granting a use variance; and
“(b) In granting a dimensional variance, that the hardship
that will be suffered by the owner of the subject property if
the dimensional variance is not granted shall amount to more
than a mere inconvenience, which shall mean that there is no
other reasonable alternative to enjoy a legally permitted
beneficial use of one’s property.
“(2) The fact that a use may be more profitable or that a structure
may be more valuable after the relief is granted shall not be grounds
for relief.” Section 255-450(E).
1
Clearly Erroneous in View of Substantial Evidence of the Whole Record
In Section II of the Board’s decision granting the dimensional variance for the new shed,
the Board stated that:
“Based upon materials provided with the application, the testimony
of the applicant and staff reports, the Board finds as follows:
“1. The Board accepted the applicant’s testimony and
materials submitted as credible and reliable;
“2. The Board reviewed and accepted the staff report as
credible and reliable;
“3. Board members were all familiar with the subject
property[.]” (Decision at 2.)
Relying on the above-mentioned factual record, the Board decided that there was sufficient
evidence for the Board to grant the dimensional variance. Id. at 4. The Board decided that the
dimensional variance was needed due to the location of the home on the lot, and due to the
configuration of the lot. Id. at 3. The Board also found that the proposed shed would not alter the

14
general character of the surrounding residential neighborhood, that the requested relief was the
least relief necessary, and that denying the variance would result in more than a mere
inconvenience. Id.
The Report analyzed each of the Coventry Code’s criteria for granting a dimensional
variance. See supra Part I.A.2. The Board’s decision notes that the Board finds the Report to be
credible and reliable. (Decision at 2.) The Board’s decision on the dimensional variance adopts
the findings of the Report and incorporates the Report by reference. See id. at 3. In reviewing the
Board’s decision, the Court “gives deference to the findings of a local zoning board of review”
because it “‘is presumed to have knowledge concerning those matters which are related to an
effective administration of the zoning ordinance.’” Pawtucket Transfer Operations, LLC, 944 A.2d
at 859 (quoting Monforte, 176 A.2d at 728). The Report clearly articulates the factual findings of
the Board and is part of the “whole record.” See Report.
Along with the Report, the Board incorporates and finds Mr. Cole’s testimony at the
August 4, 2021, hearing credible and reliable. (Decision at 2.) At that hearing, Mr. Cole testified
that there was already a preexisting shed in the same location as the proposed new shed. (August 4
Hearing at 8.) Mr. Cole also testified to the fact that there was no other good place on the Property
to place the new shed. See id. at 9.
Therefore, viewing the whole record including the Report’s extensive criteria and analysis
regarding the Coventry Code’s requirements for a dimensional variance, and the Board’s
credibility determinations regarding Mr. Cole’s testimony at the August 4, 2021 hearing, the Court
finds that the Board’s decision regarding its granting of the dimensional variance was not clearly
erroneous and came to its decision through reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the
whole record.

15
2
Arbitrary or Capricious
Adopting the analysis from above, the Court also finds that the Board’s decision regarding
the grant of the dimensional variance was not arbitrary or capricious because the Board relied on
credible and reliable evidence to come to its decision.
Therefore, viewing the Board’s reliance on the whole record including the Report’s
extensive criteria and analysis, the Board’s credibility determinations regarding Mr. Cole’s
testimony, and the Board’s visit and familiarity with the Property, the Court finds that the Board’s
decision regarding its granting of the dimensional variance was not arbitrary or capricious.
B
Special Use Permit
The Coventry Code includes the following restrictions on nonconforming development:
“A. A nonconforming use may be continued so long as it remains
otherwise lawful, and does not cause any adverse impacts to
surrounding uses, subject to the restrictions of this section.
“B. A nonconforming use shall not be enlarged or extended unless
with a special use permit in accordance with § 255-860 of this
article.” Section 255-840(A)–(B).
The Coventry Code also contains the following restrictions on nonconforming structures:
“A. A nonconforming structure may be continued provided that it
conforms to the requirements of this section.
. . .
“C. A nonconforming residential structure in a residential zone shall
not be enlarged, extended or altered to increase its nonconformity
unless with a special use permit in accordance with § 255-860.
. . .
“E. A nonconforming structure which is demolished or removed in
whole or in part by the voluntary and lawful action of the owner or

16
other authorized party shall not be rebuilt or replaced unless it
conforms with this chapter.
. . .
“H. Any nonconforming residential structure located in a residential
district which is damaged or destroyed by other than the voluntary
and lawful action of the owner or other authorized party may be
repaired or rebuilt provided that such repair or reconstruction does
not occupy a larger footprint than the damaged structure unless it
can do so in conformance with the dimensional regulations in § 255-
600.” Section 255-850 (A), (C), (E), (H).
Section 255-860 of the Coventry Code requires a special use permit when:
“The expansion, extension or alteration of nonconforming uses so
as to increase their nonconformity shall require a special use permit
from the Board. Application for a special use permit shall be made
to the Board according to the provisions of Article 4, except that
permits for nonconforming lots will not require development plan
review unless recommended by the Board.” Section 255-860.
The Coventry Code allows the Board to grant a special use permit including for when an extension
of a nonconforming use is sought. When granting a special use permit under Article IV, the
Coventry Code requires that the Board review the following evidence:
“(1) Ingress and egress to the lot and to existing or proposed
structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and
access in case of fire, emergency or catastrophe;
“(2) Off-street parking and loading areas where required (see Article
XII), with particular attention to the items in Subsection B(1) above,
and to the economic, noise, glare or odor effects of the special use
permit on adjoining lots;
“(3) Trash, storage and delivery areas with particular reference to
the items in Subsection B(1) and (2) above;
“(4) Utilities, with reference to locations, availability and
compatibility;
“(5) Screening and buffering with reference to type, dimensions and
character (see Article XVII);
“(6) Signs, if any, and exterior lighting with reference to glare,
traffic safety, economic effect on and compatibility and harmony
with lots in the zoning district (see Article XV);
“(7) Required yards and other open space;

17
“(8) General compatibility with lots in the same or abutting zoning
districts;
“(9) The use will not result in or create conditions that will exceed
the industrial performance standards in Article VII;
“(10) General compatibility with the Coventry Comprehensive Plan;
and
“(1l) That the granting will not result in conditions inimical to the
public health, safety, morals and welfare.” Section 255-430(B).
1
Clearly Erroneous in View of Substantial Evidence of the Whole Record
As part of its conclusions of law regarding the special use permit, the Board incorporated
Section II of its decision. In Section II of its decision, the Board stated that:
“Based upon materials provided with the application, the testimony
of the applicant and staff reports, the Board finds as follows:
“1. The Board accepted the applicant’s testimony and
materials submitted as credible and reliable;
“2. The Board reviewed and accepted the staff report as
credible and reliable;
“3. Board members were all familiar with the subject
property[.]” (Decision at 2.)
In its decision regarding the special use permit, the Board once again incorporates the extensive
criteria and analysis of the Report, incorporates Mr. Cole’s testimony regarding the size and
location of the new shed that it found credible and reliable, and the Board notes its familiarity with
the Property. See id. 2-4.
As to the requirements of the special use permit, the Board relied on the Report. See id.
The Report analyzed each of the Coventry Code’s criteria for granting a special use permit. See
supra Part I.A.2. The Board’s decision notes that the Board finds the Report to be credible and
reliable. (Decision at 2.)
Appellants argue that the Board did not consider the larger size of the shed in making its
decision. (Pls.’ Mem. at 1-5.) Although the Report does not address the issue regarding the size

18
of the shed, the Report is not the only evidence that the Board considered when making its decision.
See Decision at 2. The Board also relied on Mr. Cole’s testimony, which the Board found to be
credible and reliable, and the Board’s own observations of the Property including observations of
the new shed and any potential adverse impacts on the abutting properties when making its
decision. Id.
At the August 4, 2021 hearing, Mr. Cole testified that the new shed is “a couple of feet
bigger wider and longer.” (August 4 Hearing at 8.) Ms. Perkins also testified at the hearing stating
that the new shed is “much larger than the other shed and its [sic] right next to the fence.” Id. at 9.
Our Supreme Court has held “that evidence gleaned from the personal observations of
zoning board members constituted ‘legally competent evidence upon which a finding may rest . . .
if the record discloses the nature and character of the observations upon which the board acted.’”
Restivo v. Lynch, 707 A.2d 663, 666 (R.I. 1998) (quoting Perron v. Zoning Board of Review of
Town of Burrillville, 117 R.I. 571, 576, 369 A.2d 638, 641 (1977)). In Section I of its decision,
the Board states that “[b]etween the August 4 and September 1 hearings, Members of the Board
viewed the property.” (Decision at 2.) Although the Board’s observations of the new shed were
not stated in its decision, the September 1 hearing reflects that the Board made various observations
about the Property and the new shed, including that the new shed was already built, that the new
shed was “right where the old shed was[,]” that “there are giant trees and bushes behind it and its
been there for a long time[,]” that the trees hide the shed, that there are a lot of other sheds in the
front lots of other homes in the neighborhood, and that the Property’s “lot is small and there aren’t
a lot of places [one] could put [the shed].” (September 1 Hearing at 4.)
The Court finds that the record is clear that the Board relied on substantial evidence in the
record when making its decision. When the Board considered the layout of the new shed, the

19
Board based its decision on Mr. Cole’s testimony, Ms. Perkins’s testimony, the Report’s criteria
and analysis, and the Board members’ actual observations of the new existing shed. The Board
also based its decision to grant the special use permit on the Board’s own observations of the new
shed, as articulated in the September 1, 2021 hearing. Therefore, viewing the whole record
including the Report’s extensive criteria and analysis, the Board’s credibility determinations
regarding Mr. Cole’s testimony, and the Board’s visit and familiarity with the Property, the Court
finds that the Board’s decision regarding its granting of the special use permit was not clearly
erroneous and was based on substantial evidence.
2
Arbitrary or Capricious
Adopting the analysis from above, the Court also finds that the Board’s decision regarding
the granting of the special use permit was not arbitrary or capricious because the Board relied on
credible and reliable evidence to come to its decision.
Therefore, viewing the whole record including the Report’s extensive criteria and analysis,
the Board’s credibility determinations regarding Mr. Cole’s testimony, Ms. Perkins’s testimony
regarding the new shed’s size, and the Board’s visit and familiarity with the Property, the Court
finds that the Board’s decision regarding its granting of the special use permit was not arbitrary or
capricious.
IV
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, this Court AFFIRMS the Board’s decision granting
Mr. Cole’s and Ms. Taylor’s request for a dimensional variance and a special use permit. The
Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous based on substantial evidence of the whole record and

20
its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The Board’s decision also does not prejudice
Appellants’ substantial rights because the Board considered possible harms to the abutting
properties including those rights of Ronald Perkins and Louis Fichera. Counsel shall prepare the
appropriate order.

21
RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT
Decision Addendum Sheet
TITLE OF CASE: Ronald Perkins and Louis Fichera v. Kimberly J.
Taylor, et als.
CASE NO: KC-2021-1012
COURT: Kent County Superior Court
DATE DECISION FILED: March 27, 2024
JUSTICE/MAGISTRATE: McHugh, J.
ATTORNEYS:
For Plaintiffs: Jean A. Boulanger, Esq.
For Defendants: David V. Igliozzi, Esq.; Michael J. McCaffrey, Esq.