Bilodeau v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Woonsocket, 1745

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ROBERTS
• Citation: Bilodeau v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Woonsocket, 220 A.2d 224, 101 R.I. 73 (R.I. 1966)
• Decision Date: 17 June 1966
• Docket Number: No. 1745,1745
• Parties: Yolande P. BILODEAU v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF the CITY OF WOONSOCKET. M.P.

Page 224

220 A.2d 224

101 R.I. 73

Yolande P. BILODEAU v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF the CITY OF WOONSOCKET.

M.P. No. 1745.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 17, 1966.

Laurent C. Bilodeau, Woonsocket, for petitioner.

Lewis Z. Lavine, Walter Sharkey, Woonsocket, for respondent.

OPINION

ROBERTS, Chief Justice.

This petition for certiorari was brought to review a decision of the zoning board of review of the city of Woonsocket granting an application for permission to erect an addition to a building located on Greene street in that city used as a nursing home. Pursuant to the writ, the board has returned to this court the record of the proceedings before it.

It appears therefrom that Blanche Fontaine, Stella Lauzon, and Jeannette Kelly, hereinafter referred to as the applicants, are the owners of the property and operate the nursing home conducted therein. It further appears that the existing premises have accommodations for fifteen persons and that the applicants seek to erect a two-story, eight-room addition thereto which would provide accommodations for an additional sixteen persons. The land is located in a district zoned for R-5 residential uses, in which a nursing home is not a permitted use.

After conducting hearings in the matter, the board votes to grant the application, the record disclosing the reasons for granting the application to be: 'Extension of public service, unnecessary hardship, beneficial and complete use of the land.' The record does not disclose that the board made any inspection of the premises or that, in acting on the application, it relied on the personal knowledge of any of its members as to the premises.

It is clear from the decision of the board that the instant application was considered as one for a variance. This, in the circumstances, was proper, for nowhere in the record does it appear that the applicants either referred to a specific exception provided for in the...