Cranston Jewish Center v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Cranston, 1503

• Decision Date: 28 January 1963
• Docket Number: No. 1503,1503
• Citation: 95 R.I. 421,187 A.2d 779
• Parties: CRANSTON JEWISH CENTER v. The ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF the CITY OF CRANSTON. M. P.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 779

187 A.2d 779

95 R.I. 421

CRANSTON JEWISH CENTER v. The ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF the CITY OF CRANSTON.

M. P. No. 1503.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 28, 1963.

Harold I. Kessler, Providence, for petitioner.

Charles A. Kelley, City Sol. for City of Cranston, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Bernard R. Pollock, Charles A. Pisaturo, Providence, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the zoning board of review of the city of Cranston granting an application for a special exception and a variance to use certain land for a supermarket and parking area. Pursuant to the writ the board has certified the records to this court.

The following pertinent facts appear in the record. On January 30, 1961, William Jakober and Antonio F. Rotelli, jointly, filed an application for a special exception and a variance with the respondent board. On February 20, 1961 the board granted the application. The petitioner thereupon filed in this court a petitioner for a writ of certiorari to review the board's decision. After a hearing thereon we held that because of certain factual errors which had been brought to our attention by all the parties in that action we were not in a position to review the board's decision on the merits.

On the basis of the record then before us we decided that fairness and justice required that the board be given an opportunity to reconsider their action. Accordingly we granted the petition for certiorari, quashed the decision of the board, and the records which had been certified to this court were ordered sent back to the board with instructions to reconsider the application on the basis of the record before them at the time of the hearing, as corrected by the stipulated facts which had been made part of the record by order of this court. See Cranston Jewish Center v. Zoning Board of Review, R.I., 175 A.2d 296.

The instant petition alleges that the records were sent back to the board in accordance with the mandate of this court; that thereafter on numerous occasions James Di Prete, Jr., petitioner's attorney of record, made inquiries of the board, through the board's secretary or attorney, as to the date when a decision in such case would be forthcoming; that on each occasion he was advised that the board had not rendered a decision and that, as attorney for petitioner, he would be notified when the decision was rendered; that on or about July 16, 1962 he again called the secretary to inquire about the matter; and that at that time he was told by him that the board had granted the application in question and that the decision had been filed in the office of the board on May 9, 1962 at 9 a. m.

The petition further alleges that no notice of the decision was given to its attorney or to any officer or member of the Cranston Jewish Center; that no notice of the decision appeared in the public press as is customary in zoning matters; and that the failure to give notice has...