(a) An aggrieved party may appeal a decision of the zoning board of review to the superior
court for the county in which the city or town is situated by filing a complaint stating
the reasons of appeal within twenty (20) days after the decision has been recorded
and posted in the office of the city or town clerk. The decision shall be posted in
a location visible to the public in the city or town hall for a period of twenty (20)
days following the recording of the decision in the office of the city or town clerk.
The zoning board of review shall file the original documents acted upon by it and
constituting the record of the case appealed from, or certified copies, together with
other facts that may be pertinent, with the clerk of the court within thirty (30)
days after being served with a copy of the complaint. When the complaint is filed
by someone other than the original applicant or appellant, the original applicant
or appellant and the members of the zoning board are made parties to the proceedings.
The appeal shall not stay proceedings upon the decision appealed from, but the court
may, in its discretion, grant a stay on appropriate terms and make any other orders
that it deems necessary for an equitable disposition of the appeal.
(b) If, before the date set for the hearing in the superior court, an application is made
to the court for leave to present additional evidence before the zoning board of review
and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material
and that there were good reasons for the failure to present it at the hearing before
the zoning board of review, the court may order that the additional evidence be taken
before the zoning board of review upon conditions determined by the court. The zoning
board of review may modify its findings and decision by reason of the additional evidence
and file that evidence and any new findings or decisions with the superior court.
(c) The review shall be conducted by the superior court without a jury. The court shall
consider the record of the hearing before the zoning board of review and, if it appears
to the court that additional evidence is necessary for the proper disposition of the
matter, it may allow any party to the appeal to present that evidence in open court,
which evidence, along with the report, constitutes the record upon which the determination
of the court is made.
(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;
(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.
Notes of Decisions
Mill Realty Assocs. v. Crowe, 841 A.2d 668 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 12× “" The petitioner faults the trial justice for confining her decision to the issue of selective enforcement, and not addressing its larger concern that Coventry's decision was arbitrary and capricious.”
Bernuth v. Zoning Bd. of Review, 770 A.2d 396 (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 6× “7 Pursuant to G.L.1956 § 45-24-69, petitioners timely appealed to the Superior Court which affirmed the relief granted by the zoning board in December 1999.”
Jeff Anthony Props. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of the Town of North Providence, 853 A.2d 1226 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 7× “— (a) Whenever an aggrieved party appeals a decision of a zoning board of review to the superior court pursuant to the provisions of § 45-24-69, the aggrieved party shall also give notice of the appeal to those persons who were entitled to notice of the hearing set by the zoning…”
Pawtucket Transfer Operations, LLC v. City of Pawtucket, 944 A.2d 855 (R.I. 2008).
· cites it 5× “PTO appealed the zoning board’s decision to the Superior Court under G.L.1956 § 45-24-69. In a bench decision, the trial justice reversed the board, finding that the board “arbitrarily and capriciously amend *858 ed the ordinance and read it in a way that the common, normal…”
Sciacca v. Caruso, 769 A.2d 578 (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 3× “A justice of the Superior Court reviewed the zoning board’s decision under § 45-24-69. 4 On September 16, 1999, he affirmed the decision of the zoning board and entered an order about one week later that reflected his decision.”
Cohen v. Duncan, 970 A.2d 550 (R.I. 2009).
· cites it 6× “Appeal to the Superior Court On November 13, 2002, Cohen appealed the board’s decision to approve the building permits and site plans to the Superior Court under § 45-24-69. On appeal, Cohen argued that the board improperly found that Cliff Walk relied in good faith on the…”
Duffy v. Milder, 896 A.2d 27 (R.I. 2006).
· cites it 5× “The Duffys then filed a separate complaint in Superior Court (KC 03-82), in which they appealed the zoning board’s decision, pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 45-24-69. In this complaint, they further alleged that the Milders’ equestrian activities violated existing zoning as well as the…”
Town of Coventry Zoning Bd. of Review v. Omni Dev. Corp., 814 A.2d 889 (R.I. 2003).
· cites it 5× “Further, Coventry asserts that the standard of review applicable to SHAB decisions is analogous to that applied by the Superior Court in considering appeals from local zoning boards of review pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 45-24-69. Coventry also challenges the decision on the ground…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-69(D) — 2 cases
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-69(a) — 8 cases
Jeff Anthony Props. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of the Town of North Providence, 853 A.2d 1226 (R.I. 2004).
“— (a) Whenever an aggrieved party appeals a decision of a zoning board of review to the superior court pursuant to the provisions of § 45-24-69, the aggrieved party shall also give notice of the appeal to those persons who were entitled to notice of the hearing set by the zoning…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-69(b) — 1 case
Jeff Anthony Props. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of the Town of North Providence, 853 A.2d 1226 (R.I. 2004).
“— (a) Whenever an aggrieved party appeals a decision of a zoning board of review to the superior court pursuant to the provisions of § 45-24-69, the aggrieved party shall also give notice of the appeal to those persons who were entitled to notice of the hearing set by the zoning…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-69(c) — 2 cases
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-69(d) — 14 cases
Mill Realty Assocs. v. Crowe, 841 A.2d 668 (R.I. 2004).
“" The petitioner faults the trial justice for confining her decision to the issue of selective enforcement, and not addressing its larger concern that Coventry's decision was arbitrary and capricious.”
Cohen v. Duncan, 970 A.2d 550 (R.I. 2009).
“Appeal to the Superior Court On November 13, 2002, Cohen appealed the board’s decision to approve the building permits and site plans to the Superior Court under § 45-24-69. On appeal, Cohen argued that the board improperly found that Cliff Walk relied in good faith on the…”
Pawtucket Transfer Operations, LLC v. City of Pawtucket, 944 A.2d 855 (R.I. 2008).
“PTO appealed the zoning board’s decision to the Superior Court under G.L.1956 § 45-24-69. In a bench decision, the trial justice reversed the board, finding that the board “arbitrarily and capriciously amend *858 ed the ordinance and read it in a way that the common, normal…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-69(d)(1) — 1 case
Bernuth v. Zoning Bd. of Review, 770 A.2d 396 (R.I. 2001).
“7 Pursuant to G.L.1956 § 45-24-69, petitioners timely appealed to the Superior Court which affirmed the relief granted by the zoning board in December 1999.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-69(d)(4) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-69(d)(6) — 1 case
Mill Realty Assocs. v. Crowe, 841 A.2d 668 (R.I. 2004).
“" The petitioner faults the trial justice for confining her decision to the issue of selective enforcement, and not addressing its larger concern that Coventry's decision was arbitrary and capricious.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.