Buckminster v. Zoning Bd. Of Review Of City Of Pawtucket. Cushman, s. 796, 797.
| Decision Date | 28 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 796, 797.,s. 796, 797. |
| Citation | 30 A.2d 104 |
| Parties | BUCKMINSTER et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF CITY OF PAWTUCKET. CUSHMAN et al. v. SAME. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari proceeding by Rollin Buckminster and others against Zoning Board of Review of the City of Pawtucket, consolidated with a certiorari proceeding by Elizabeth L. Cushman and others against same respondent, to review decision of respondent Board granting application of Charles B. Lennon to use his residence as a funeral home in a district zoned as a Residence B district.
Papers of respondent Board remanded to Board for purpose of clarifying and completing its decisions in accordance with opinion.
Hurley, Moriarty & Connly and John W. Moakler, Jr., all of Providence, for petitioners.
Walter J. Hennessey, of Providence, for respondent.
These are two petitions for writs of certiorari, brought under the provisions of General Laws 1938, chapter 342, § 8, to review the decision of the respondent board granting the application of Charles B. Lennon to use his residence, at the southwest corner of Central avenue and Orchard street, in the city of Pawtucket, as a funeral home in a district zoned as a Residence B district. The writs were issued, and, in accordance with their mandate, the papers of the board in the matter were duly certified to this court.
The petitioners, who strongly insist that the action of the board in these cases is an arbitrary exercise of its power, contend, among other things, that since the board has failed to state the ground or grounds for its decision “it is impossible to know the basis for said Zoning Board of Review's action and to determine whether said decision on the facts in evidence bears a substantial relation to the protection of the public interests.” The answer of the respondent to this contention is that the decision shows, by construction if not in express terms, that the board based its action on a consideration of the public interests.
There is merit to the petitioners' contention. After referring to the fact that a public hearing was held on the matter and that the board viewed the property and neighborhood, the decision quotes section 16, subsection (8) of the zoning ordinance of the city of Pawtucket, and then concludes as follows: , with certain minor restrictions not necessary to mention here.
[1] A party who claims to be aggrieved by the decision of a zoning board is entitled as of right to a review by this court on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Apostolou v. Genovesi, 77-18-M
...§ 45-24-20 by the Legislature in 1969, this court reviewed decisions of zoning boards by way of certiorari. Buckminster v. Zoning Board of Review, 68 R.I. 515, 30 A.2d 104 (1943). The standard of review applied was the general certiorari standard. Caluori v. Zoning Board of Review, 100 R.I.......
-
Dulgarian v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Providence
... ... v. Board of ... Appeals of Pawtucket , 92 R.I. 442, 444, 169 A.2d 607, ... 608 (1961) ... at 303, 180 ... A.2d at 322 (citing Buckminster v. Zoning Board of ... Review , 68 R.I. 515, 30 A.2d ... ...
-
Dulgarian v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Providence, C.A. No. PC-2008-4182 (R.I. Super 1/5/2010)
...the knowledge so acquired and a board's action pursuant thereto. Kelly, 94 R.I. at 303, 180 A.2d at 322 (citing Buckminster v. Zoning Board of Review, 68 R.I. 515, 30 A.2d 104); see also Goldstein v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Warwick, 101 R.I. 728, 227 A.2d 195 The arbitrary and capricious an......
-
Hopf v. Board of Review of City of Newport
...v. Zoning Board of Review, R.I., 220 A.2d 224; Heroux v. Zoning Board of Review, 82 R.I. 237, 107 A.2d 303; Buckminster v. Zoning Board of Review, 68 R.I. 515, 30 A.2d 104; Berg v. Zoning Board of Review, 64 R.I. 290, 12 A.2d 225. We believe the rule stated in the latter cases is the better......