50 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lischio v. Zoning Board of Review of North Kingstowngreen2 sentences2010Lischio v. Zoning Bd. of Review of North Kingstown , 818 A.2d 685 , 691 (R.I. 2003) 17 A special exception, or special use permit, is classified as an exception. 18 The Viti doctrine is codified at G.L. 1956 § 45-24-41 (d)(2), which requires the applicant to demonstrate only "that the hardship [the applicant would suffer] if the dimensional variance is not granted amounts to more than a mere inconvenience." 19 Section 1000 of the Zoning Ordinance defines "special use" as "[a] regulated use which is permitted pursuant to the special-use permit issued by the Board, pursuant to Section 902.4. 2010Lischio v. Zoning Bd. of Review of North Kingstown , 818 A.2d 685 , 691 (R.I. 2003) 17 A special exception, or special use permit, is classified as an exception. 18 The Viti doctrine is codified at G.L. 1956 § 45-24-41 (d)(2), which requires the applicant to demonstrate only "that the hardship [the applicant would suffer] if the dimensional variance is not granted amounts to more than a mere inconvenience." 19 Section 1000 of the Zoning Ordinance defines "special use" as "[a] regulated use which is permitted pursuant to the special-use permit issued by the Board, pursuant to Section 902.4. | 3 | 8 |
Viti v. Zoning Board of Review of Providencegreen2 sentences2010This standard was initially pronounced in Viti v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Providence , 92 R.I. 59 , 166 A.2d 211 (1960), and is commonly referred to as the Viti doctrine. 18 Lastly, a petitioner requesting an exception must establish that the exception sought will substantially serve the public convenience and welfare by demonstrating that "neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon the public health, safety, welfare and morals." Hugas Corp. v. *Page 15 Veader , 456 A.2d 765 , 772 n. 5 (R.I. 1987) (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-8 2010This standard was initially pronounced in Viti v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Providence , 92 R.I. 59 , 166 A.2d 211 (1960), and is commonly referred to as the Viti doctrine. 18 Lastly, a petitioner requesting an exception must establish that the exception sought will substantially serve the public convenience and welfare by demonstrating that "neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon the public health, safety, welfare and morals." Hugas Corp. v. *Page 15 Veader , 456 A.2d 765 , 772 n. 5 (R.I. 1987) (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-8 | 2 | 16 |
Bamber v. Zoning Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences1995As a result, the defendants aver that as the actual relief is not related to the use of the property, that the proper standard to apply is the Viti doctrine. 1 The Supreme Court recently distinguished between a true variance and a deviation in Bamber v. Zoning Bd. of Review, 591 A.2d 1220 (R.I. 1991). 1995As a result, the defendants aver that as the actual relief is not related to the use of the property, that the proper standard to apply is the Viti doctrine. 1 The Supreme Court recently distinguished between a true variance and a deviation in Bamber v. Zoning Bd. of Review, 591 A.2d 1220 (R.I. 1991). | 2 | 8 |
Felicio v. Fleurygreen2 sentences1997Bamber v. Zoning Board of Review, 591 A.2d 1220 , 1223 (R.I. 1991) (citing Felicio v. Fleury, 557 A.2d 480 , 482 (R.I. 1989)). 1997Bamber v. Zoning Board of Review, 591 A.2d 1220 , 1223 (R.I. 1991) (citing Felicio v. Fleury, 557 A.2d 480 , 482 (R.I. 1989)). | 2 | 6 |
DeStefano v. ZONING BD. OF REVIEW, ETC.green2 sentences2009See DeStefano v. Zoning Board of Review of Warwick , 122 R.I. 241 , 246-47 , 405 A.2d 1167 , 1170 (1979) ("The Viti doctrine . . . was never intended to operate where the requested relief can be obtained through local zoning ordinances." Thus, the Viti Doctrine was inapplicable where the "Zoning Ordinances allow[ed] the board to grant a special exception for the construction of a permitted use on an undersized lot. 2009See DeStefano v. Zoning Board of Review of Warwick , 122 R.I. 241 , 246-47 , 405 A.2d 1167 , 1170 (1979) ("The Viti doctrine . . . was never intended to operate where the requested relief can be obtained through local zoning ordinances." Thus, the Viti Doctrine was inapplicable where the "Zoning Ordinances allow[ed] the board to grant a special exception for the construction of a permitted use on an undersized lot. | 2 | 5 |
Gara Realty, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences2001"The Viti doctrine as it has developed in the case law in Rhode Island has applied exclusively to area restrictions on permitted uses." See generally; Bamber, 591 A.2d at 1223; Gara v. Zoning Board of Review of South Kingston, 523 A.2d 855 , 858 (R.I. 1987); Rozes v. Smith, 120 R.I. 515 , 518, 388 A.2d 816 , 819 (1978). 2001"The Viti doctrine as it has developed in the case law in Rhode Island has applied exclusively to area restrictions on permitted uses." See generally; Bamber, 591 A.2d at 1223; Gara v. Zoning Board of Review of South Kingston, 523 A.2d 855 , 858 (R.I. 1987); Rozes v. Smith, 120 R.I. 515 , 518, 388 A.2d 816 , 819 (1978). | 1 | 6 |
Destefano v. Zoning Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences2009See DeStefano v. Zoning Board of Review of Warwick , 122 R.I. 241 , 246-47 , 405 A.2d 1167 , 1170 (1979) ("The Viti doctrine . . . was never intended to operate where the requested relief can be obtained through local zoning ordinances." Thus, the Viti Doctrine was inapplicable where the "Zoning Ordinances allow[ed] the board to grant a special exception for the construction of a permitted use on an undersized lot. 2009See DeStefano v. Zoning Board of Review of Warwick , 122 R.I. 241 , 246-47 , 405 A.2d 1167 , 1170 (1979) ("The Viti doctrine . . . was never intended to operate where the requested relief can be obtained through local zoning ordinances." Thus, the Viti Doctrine was inapplicable where the "Zoning Ordinances allow[ed] the board to grant a special exception for the construction of a permitted use on an undersized lot. | 1 | 4 |
Rozes v. Smithgreen2 sentences2001"The Viti doctrine as it has developed in the case law in Rhode Island has applied exclusively to area restrictions on permitted uses." See generally; Bamber, 591 A.2d at 1223; Gara v. Zoning Board of Review of South Kingston, 523 A.2d 855 , 858 (R.I. 1987); Rozes v. Smith, 120 R.I. 515 , 518, 388 A.2d 816 , 819 (1978). 2001"The Viti doctrine as it has developed in the case law in Rhode Island has applied exclusively to area restrictions on permitted uses." See generally; Bamber, 591 A.2d at 1223; Gara v. Zoning Board of Review of South Kingston, 523 A.2d 855 , 858 (R.I. 1987); Rozes v. Smith, 120 R.I. 515 , 518, 388 A.2d 816 , 819 (1978). | 1 | 4 |
Travers v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of Bristolgreen2 sentences2007Lischio , 818 A.2d at 691 ; see also Travers v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Bristol , 101 R.I. 510 , 515 , 225 A.2d 222 , 224 (1967) (holding that the Viti standard was satisfied when applicant wanted to build a non-conforming garage in order to "`give [his] tenants a little yard'"); Monaco , 407 A.2d at 1095 (holding that Appellees "will suffer `undue hardship' if not allowed to expand according to plans of 20 years' duration formed with the ostensible consent of the zoning authorities"). 2007Lischio , 818 A.2d at 691 ; see also Travers v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Bristol , 101 R.I. 510 , 515 , 225 A.2d 222 , 224 (1967) (holding that the Viti standard was satisfied when applicant wanted to build a non-conforming garage in order to "`give [his] tenants a little yard'"); Monaco , 407 A.2d at 1095 (holding that Appellees "will suffer `undue hardship' if not allowed to expand according to plans of 20 years' duration formed with the ostensible consent of the zoning authorities"). | 1 | 3 |
Sciacca v. Carusogreen2 sentences2001The 1991 legislation established a new statutory requirement for obtaining a dimensional variance that “effectively sounded the death knell for the old Viti doctrine that had allowed a property owner to obtain a dimensional variance simply by demonstrating an adverse impact amounting to more than a mere inconvenience.” Sciacca v. Caruso, 769 A.2d 578, 583 (R.I.2001). 2001The 1991 legislation established a new statutory requirement for obtaining a dimensional variance that “effectively sounded the death knell for the old Viti doctrine that had allowed a property owner to obtain a dimensional variance simply by demonstrating an adverse impact amounting to more than a mere inconvenience.” Sciacca v. Caruso, 769 A.2d 578, 583 (R.I.2001). | 1 | 3 |
Hugas Corp. v. Veadergreen2 sentences2010This standard was initially pronounced in Viti v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Providence , 92 R.I. 59 , 166 A.2d 211 (1960), and is commonly referred to as the Viti doctrine. 18 Lastly, a petitioner requesting an exception must establish that the exception sought will substantially serve the public convenience and welfare by demonstrating that "neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon the public health, safety, welfare and morals." Hugas Corp. v. *Page 15 Veader , 456 A.2d 765 , 772 n. 5 (R.I. 1987) (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-8 2010This standard was initially pronounced in Viti v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Providence , 92 R.I. 59 , 166 A.2d 211 (1960), and is commonly referred to as the Viti doctrine. 18 Lastly, a petitioner requesting an exception must establish that the exception sought will substantially serve the public convenience and welfare by demonstrating that "neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon the public health, safety, welfare and morals." Hugas Corp. v. *Page 15 Veader , 456 A.2d 765 , 772 n. 5 (R.I. 1987) (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-8 | 1 | 2 |
Northeastern Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review of New Shorehamgreen2 sentences1997"VITI" AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT The plaintiff urges that the relief sought is in the nature of a "deviation." A dimensional variance also known as a Viti variance or deviation, "affords relief from provisions that govern area and setback restrictions and comes into play only when the project involves a permitted use." Northeastern Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Review , 534 A.2d 603 , 605 (R.I. 1987). "[A] conditionally permitted use, which is a euphemism for a use permitted by means of special exception, is [not] synonymous with the phrase `permitted use' for purposes of application of the Viti rule." 1997"VITI" AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT The plaintiff urges that the relief sought is in the nature of a "deviation." A dimensional variance also known as a Viti variance or deviation, "affords relief from provisions that govern area and setback restrictions and comes into play only when the project involves a permitted use." Northeastern Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Review , 534 A.2d 603 , 605 (R.I. 1987). "[A] conditionally permitted use, which is a euphemism for a use permitted by means of special exception, is [not] synonymous with the phrase `permitted use' for purposes of application of the Viti rule." | 1 | 2 |
DiDonato v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of Johnstongreen2 sentences1991See, e.g., DiDonato, 104 R.I. 158 , 242 A.2d 416 (applicant sought a variance to construct a larger home due to increase in family size); Apostolou, 120 R.I. 501 , 388 A.2d 821 (mere economic impracticality was mere inconvenience thus insufficient to satisfy Viti standard); Lincoln Plastic Products Co. v. Zoning Board of Review, 104 R.I. 111 , 242 A.2d 301 (1968) (denying relief where applicants merely established their personal preference for the proposed structure). 1991See, e.g., DiDonato, 104 R.I. 158 , 242 A.2d 416 (applicant sought a variance to construct a larger home due to increase in family size); Apostolou, 120 R.I. 501 , 388 A.2d 821 (mere economic impracticality was mere inconvenience thus insufficient to satisfy Viti standard); Lincoln Plastic Products Co. v. Zoning Board of Review, 104 R.I. 111 , 242 A.2d 301 (1968) (denying relief where applicants merely established their personal preference for the proposed structure). | 1 | 2 |
Newton v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Warwickgreen2 sentences2009Section 14.2.2 of the ordinances empowered the board to grant relief from set-back requirements."); see also Newton v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Warwick , 713 A.2d 239 , 240 (R.I. 1998) (describing the holding in Northeastern Corporation v. Zoning Board of Review of New Shoreham , 534 A.2d 603 (R.I. 1987) as "in effect that a dimensional deviation could not be granted in a situation in which a use was permitted by way of a special exception"). 2009Section 14.2.2 of the ordinances empowered the board to grant relief from set-back requirements."); see also Newton v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Warwick , 713 A.2d 239 , 240 (R.I. 1998) (describing the holding in Northeastern Corporation v. Zoning Board of Review of New Shoreham , 534 A.2d 603 (R.I. 1987) as "in effect that a dimensional deviation could not be granted in a situation in which a use was permitted by way of a special exception"). | 1 | 1 |
Monaco v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2007Lischio , 818 A.2d at 691 ; see also Travers v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Bristol , 101 R.I. 510 , 515 , 225 A.2d 222 , 224 (1967) (holding that the Viti standard was satisfied when applicant wanted to build a non-conforming garage in order to "`give [his] tenants a little yard'"); Monaco , 407 A.2d at 1095 (holding that Appellees "will suffer `undue hardship' if not allowed to expand according to plans of 20 years' duration formed with the ostensible consent of the zoning authorities"). 2007Lischio , 818 A.2d at 691 ; see also Travers v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Bristol , 101 R.I. 510 , 515 , 225 A.2d 222 , 224 (1967) (holding that the Viti standard was satisfied when applicant wanted to build a non-conforming garage in order to "`give [his] tenants a little yard'"); Monaco , 407 A.2d at 1095 (holding that Appellees "will suffer `undue hardship' if not allowed to expand according to plans of 20 years' duration formed with the ostensible consent of the zoning authorities"). | 1 | 1 |
O'REILLY v. Town of Glocestergreen1 sentence2003Although the statute in effect at the time an appeal is decided is the controlling law, O’Reilly v. Town of Glocester, 621 A.2d 697, 704-05 (R.I.1993), we conclude that a variance for lot No. 20 not only satisfies the more relaxed Viti standard for a dimensional variance, but that the Lischios also satisfied the more stringent test set forth in the statute as originally written. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sun Oil Company v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Warwick
green
2 sentences2004(Emphases added). 9 "Under the Viti rule . . . a landowner, precluded from the full enjoyment of the use of his property for permitted purposes by an insistence upon a literal enforcement of area restrictions, is entitled to relief upon a showing that the adverse effect of such enforcement will amount to something more than a mere inconvenience." Sun Oil Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of the City of Warwick, 105 R.I. 231 , 233, 251 A.2d 167 , 169 (R.I. 1969). 2004(Emphases added). 9 "Under the Viti rule . . . a landowner, precluded from the full enjoyment of the use of his property for permitted purposes by an insistence upon a literal enforcement of area restrictions, is entitled to relief upon a showing that the adverse effect of such enforcement will amount to something more than a mere inconvenience." Sun Oil Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of the City of Warwick, 105 R.I. 231 , 233, 251 A.2d 167 , 169 (R.I. 1969). | 10 | 1978–2004 |
Westminster Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review
green
2 sentences2007Following Viti , a party seeking a dimensional variance only had to show that the relief sought was necessary to avoid an "adverse effect amounting to more than a mere inconvenience." Westminster , 238 A.2d at 357 ; see also DeStefano v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Warwick , 405 A.2d 1167 , 1170 (R.I. 1979). *Page 12 The Viti doctrine prevailed until 2001. 2007Following Viti , a party seeking a dimensional variance only had to show that the relief sought was necessary to avoid an "adverse effect amounting to more than a mere inconvenience." Westminster , 238 A.2d at 357 ; see also DeStefano v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Warwick , 405 A.2d 1167 , 1170 (R.I. 1979). *Page 12 The Viti doctrine prevailed until 2001. | 5 | 1968–2007 |
VSH RLTY., INC. v. Zoning Bd. of Review
green
2 sentences1996Consequently, "the Viti rule only applies where the relief sought is for a permitted use, never where the applicant seeks both a [Viti variance or] deviation and a special exception. . . ." Id. (citing Sun Oil Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Review, 105 R.I. 231 , 251 A.2d 167 (1960)). 1996Consequently, "the Viti rule only applies where the relief sought is for a permitted use, never where the applicant seeks both a [Viti variance or] deviation and a special exception. . . ." Id. (citing Sun Oil Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Review, 105 R.I. 231 , 251 A.2d 167 (1960)). | 4 | 1993–1997 |
Lindberg's, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Review
green
2 sentences1978We rejected this identical argument in Lindberg's Inc. v. Zoning Board of Review, 106 R.I. 667 , 262 A.2d 628 (1970), and we see no reason not to do so here. 1978We rejected this identical argument in Lindberg's Inc. v. Zoning Board of Review, 106 R.I. 667 , 262 A.2d 628 (1970), and we see no reason not to do so here. | 2 | 1978–1978 |
Nani v. Zoning Board of Review of Town of Smithfield
green
2 sentences2010This standard was initially pronounced in Viti v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Providence , 92 R.I. 59 , 166 A.2d 211 (1960), and is commonly referred to as the Viti doctrine. 18 Lastly, a petitioner requesting an exception must establish that the exception sought will substantially serve the public convenience and welfare by demonstrating that "neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon the public health, safety, welfare and morals." Hugas Corp. v. *Page 15 Veader , 456 A.2d 765 , 772 n. 5 (R.I. 1987) (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-8 2010This standard was initially pronounced in Viti v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Providence , 92 R.I. 59 , 166 A.2d 211 (1960), and is commonly referred to as the Viti doctrine. 18 Lastly, a petitioner requesting an exception must establish that the exception sought will substantially serve the public convenience and welfare by demonstrating that "neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon the public health, safety, welfare and morals." Hugas Corp. v. *Page 15 Veader , 456 A.2d 765 , 772 n. 5 (R.I. 1987) (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-8 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hester v. Timothy
green
2 sentences2010This standard was initially pronounced in Viti v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Providence , 92 R.I. 59 , 166 A.2d 211 (1960), and is commonly referred to as the Viti doctrine. 18 Lastly, a petitioner requesting an exception must establish that the exception sought will substantially serve the public convenience and welfare by demonstrating that "neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon the public health, safety, welfare and morals." Hugas Corp. v. *Page 15 Veader , 456 A.2d 765 , 772 n. 5 (R.I. 1987) (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-8 2010This standard was initially pronounced in Viti v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Providence , 92 R.I. 59 , 166 A.2d 211 (1960), and is commonly referred to as the Viti doctrine. 18 Lastly, a petitioner requesting an exception must establish that the exception sought will substantially serve the public convenience and welfare by demonstrating that "neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon the public health, safety, welfare and morals." Hugas Corp. v. *Page 15 Veader , 456 A.2d 765 , 772 n. 5 (R.I. 1987) (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-8 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Toohey v. Kilday
green
2 sentences2010Formerly referred to as a special exception." 20 In recognizing this impossibility, Board Member Wolf commented that "[i]t's a little bit of a magic wand approach to decision making, telling somebody to do something when you know it's not feasible." (Tr. at 180.) 21 While the Board recognized the objectors' arguments, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that "the lay judgments of neighboring property owners on the issues of the effect of a proposed use on neighborhood property values and traffic conditions have no probative force in respect of an application to the zoning board of review f 2010Formerly referred to as a special exception." 20 In recognizing this impossibility, Board Member Wolf commented that "[i]t's a little bit of a magic wand approach to decision making, telling somebody to do something when you know it's not feasible." (Tr. at 180.) 21 While the Board recognized the objectors' arguments, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that "the lay judgments of neighboring property owners on the issues of the effect of a proposed use on neighborhood property values and traffic conditions have no probative force in respect of an application to the zoning board of review f | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Salve Regina College v. Zoning Board of Review
green
2 sentences2010Formerly referred to as a special exception." 20 In recognizing this impossibility, Board Member Wolf commented that "[i]t's a little bit of a magic wand approach to decision making, telling somebody to do something when you know it's not feasible." (Tr. at 180.) 21 While the Board recognized the objectors' arguments, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that "the lay judgments of neighboring property owners on the issues of the effect of a proposed use on neighborhood property values and traffic conditions have no probative force in respect of an application to the zoning board of review f 2010Formerly referred to as a special exception." 20 In recognizing this impossibility, Board Member Wolf commented that "[i]t's a little bit of a magic wand approach to decision making, telling somebody to do something when you know it's not feasible." (Tr. at 180.) 21 While the Board recognized the objectors' arguments, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that "the lay judgments of neighboring property owners on the issues of the effect of a proposed use on neighborhood property values and traffic conditions have no probative force in respect of an application to the zoning board of review f | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Bernuth v. Zoning Board of Review
green
2 sentences2007Id. (citing Sciacca 769 A.2d at 583 ). 2007Id. (citing Sciacca 769 A.2d at 583 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
New England Expedition-Providence, LLC v. City of Providence
green
1 sentence2005As it is well settled that an ordinance cannot contravene the Zoning Enabling Act, New England Expedition-Providence, LLC v. City of Providence, 773 A.2d 259 , 262 (R.I. 2001) (holding local ordinance preempted by state enabling act), the Board was required to apply the "more than a mere inconvenience" standard. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Bernstein v. Zoning Board of Review
neutral
2 sentences1996A special use, formerly known as a special exception, "contemplates a permitted use when under the terms of an ordinance the prescribed conditions therefor are met"; the grant of a special use permit then creates ". . . a conditionally permitted use. . . ." Bernstein v. Zoning Bd. of Review of East Providence, 99 R.I. 494 , 497, 209 A.2d 52 , 54 (1965). ". . . [A] conditionally permitted use, which is a euphemism for a use permitted by means of special exception, is [not] synonymous with the phrase `permitted use' for purposes of application of the Viti rule." V.H.S. 1996A special use, formerly known as a special exception, "contemplates a permitted use when under the terms of an ordinance the prescribed conditions therefor are met"; the grant of a special use permit then creates ". . . a conditionally permitted use. . . ." Bernstein v. Zoning Bd. of Review of East Providence, 99 R.I. 494 , 497, 209 A.2d 52 , 54 (1965). ". . . [A] conditionally permitted use, which is a euphemism for a use permitted by means of special exception, is [not] synonymous with the phrase `permitted use' for purposes of application of the Viti rule." V.H.S. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lincoln Plastic Products Co. v. Zoning Board of Review
green
2 sentences1991See, e.g., DiDonato, 104 R.I. 158 , 242 A.2d 416 (applicant sought a variance to construct a larger home due to increase in family size); Apostolou, 120 R.I. 501 , 388 A.2d 821 (mere economic impracticality was mere inconvenience thus insufficient to satisfy Viti standard); Lincoln Plastic Products Co. v. Zoning Board of Review, 104 R.I. 111 , 242 A.2d 301 (1968) (denying relief where applicants merely established their personal preference for the proposed structure). 1991See, e.g., DiDonato, 104 R.I. 158 , 242 A.2d 416 (applicant sought a variance to construct a larger home due to increase in family size); Apostolou, 120 R.I. 501 , 388 A.2d 821 (mere economic impracticality was mere inconvenience thus insufficient to satisfy Viti standard); Lincoln Plastic Products Co. v. Zoning Board of Review, 104 R.I. 111 , 242 A.2d 301 (1968) (denying relief where applicants merely established their personal preference for the proposed structure). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Apostolou v. Genovesi
green
2 sentences1991This standard has come to be known as the Viti doctrine, Rozes, 120 R.I. at 519 , 388 A.2d at 819 , and, in accordance therewith, an applicant seeks a deviation from regulations permitting a use rather than a "true" variance. 1991This standard has come to be known as the Viti doctrine, Rozes, 120 R.I. at 519 , 388 A.2d at 819 , and, in accordance therewith, an applicant seeks a deviation from regulations permitting a use rather than a "true" variance. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Sprague-Covington Co. v. Zoning Board of Review
green
2 sentences1969I. 317, 230 A.2d 419 ; it has never been applied as the controlling yardstick where the property owner is seeking both a relaxation of the area restrictions as well as a variance or an exception for a nonpermitted use. 1969I. 317, 230 A.2d 419 ; it has never been applied as the controlling yardstick where the property owner is seeking both a relaxation of the area restrictions as well as a variance or an exception for a nonpermitted use. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Standish-Johnson Co. v. Zoning Board of Review green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Reynolds v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF TOWN OF LINCOLN neutral | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Reynolds v. Zoning Board of Review neutral | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| H. J. Bernard Realty Company, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Review green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.