Case Title: Iannuccillo v. Zoning Board of Review

Citation: 236 A.2d 253

Docket Number: 

State: rhode-island

Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Date: 1967-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
236 A.2d 253 (1967) Emilio D. IANNUCCILLO, v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF the TOWN OF WARREN. No. 98-M.P. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. December 19, 1967. *254 Emilio D. Iannuccillo, Bristol, pro se. Pasquale T. Annarummo, Warren, Town Sol., for respondent. PAOLINO, Justice. This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the respondent board denying the petitioner's application for a special exception. He sought permission to convert an existing nonconforming two-family building in a residence A zone into a multiple dwelling of four units. The writ issued and pursuant thereto the pertinent records have been certified to this court. A multi-family dwelling is not a permitted use in a residence A zone, but under sec. 3-4-2 of the zoning ordinance two-family dwellings and multiple dwellings or apartment houses are permitted in such zone by special exception. In his application petitioner specified that he was seeking a special exception pursuant to the provisions of secs. 3-4-2 and 6-2-7 of the ordinance. Section 6-2-7 is the section of the ordinance which empowers the zoning board to grant special exceptions under the conditions therein specified. It reads as follows: After the hearing the board filed a written decision denying the application and setting forth the reason for its action. The petitioner contends that the board's decision is erroneous. We do not agree. For reasons which we shall discuss presently, we affirm the decision of the board but do not pass on the grounds upon which it relied. In a long line of cases we have held that an applicant for relief under the ordinance has the burden of presenting competent evidence to establish entitlement to relief. Caldarone v. Zoning Board of Review, 95 R.I. 485, 187 A.2d 924. Under the pertinent provisions of the Warren ordinance, the burden was on petitioner to present competent evidence to establish that by granting the special exception which he sought, the public convenience and welfare would be substantially served and the appropriate use of neighboring property would not be substantially or permanently injured. Fratantuono v. Zoning Board of Review, 90 R.I. 449, 159 A.2d 378. The record contains no evidence whatsoever to establish that the proposed use would substantially serve the public convenience and welfare and that it would not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of neighbouring property. Indeed the record, as certified to this court, contains neither a transcript nor an adequate summary of what transpired at the hearing before the board. Nor is there any information in the application, or elsewhere, tending to establish compliance with the conditions precedent presecribed in the ordinance. *255 Compare Gardiner v. Zoning Board of rEview, R.I., 226 A.2d 698. Absent such evidence, the board was without authority to grant the special exception. Baker v. Zoning Board of Review, R.I., 228 A.2d 859. As the court said only recently in Melucci v. Zoning Board of Review, R.I., 226 A.2d 416, at 418. In the case at abar there is no evidence in the record upon which the board could base a finding that the codnitions set forth in the ordinance had been met. Indeed, petitioner admitted in his oral argument that he presented no evidence with respect to these conditions. As we have stated previously, the board consequently lacked authority to act affirmatively. We are cognizant of the fact that the absence of a transcript is due to the board's failure to furnish a stenographer or a stenographic record or even a brief summary of what transpired at the hearing. In this regard the board has failed to comply with the provisions of G.L. 1956, § 45-24-15, which provides that: In Jacques v. Zoning Board of Review, 64 R.I. 284, 288, 12 A.2d 222, 224, we said: See also Russell v. Zoning Board of Review, R.I. 219 A.2d 475, where this court quashed the decision of a zoning board because the board's summary was found to be inadequate. Although the board has erred with respect to this matter, such error is not prejudicial to petitioner. As we have already noted, petitioner conceded in oral argument before us that he presented no evidence of compliance with the conditions-precedent required by the ordinance. Therefore, even if the board had supplied this court with an adequate summary of the proceedings below, there would still be no evidence of compliance with the conditions-precedent set forth in the ordinance and therefore, on this record, the court was without authority to grant affirmative relief. It may be helpful to point out here that although there is nothing in the enabling act requiring a zoning board to make a stenographic record of hearings before it, it is equally true that nothing in the act prohibits parties appearing before it from making, or causing to be made, at their own expense, stenographic recordings of such hearings. See Robinson v. Town Council, 60 R.I. 422, 199 Atl. 308. We believe that a practice of this nature will be of great aid to the parties involved in such matters, as well as to the court, in the furtherance of justice in zoning cases. The petition for certiorari is denied and dismissed, the writ heretofore issued is *256 quashed, and the records certified to this court are ordered returned to the respondent board with our decision endorsed thereon.