Source: http://ri.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180103_0000001.RI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:21:15+00:00

Document:
For Plaintiff: Kelly M. Fracassa, Esq.
For Defendant: Robert E. Craven, Esq.; Wyatt A. Brochu, Esq.
This matter is before the Court on the appeal of Plaintiff, The New Castle Realty Company (New Castle), from a decision of the Town of Charlestown Zoning Board of Review (the Board). The Board's decision denied Plaintiff's requested relief for a special use permit to install a septic system and dimensional variances on a parcel of land consisting largely of wetlands. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 45-24-69.
Board Member Quadrato opined that the requested dimensional variances would alter the general character of the surrounding area as it would be a much smaller house and much closer to the property line in the area. (Decision, Mar. 23, 2015; Tr. 57.) Lastly, all Board Members denying relief agreed that the requested relief was contrary to the public interest and welfare of the community. (Decision, Mar. 23, 2015.) The Board issued its written decision on March 23, 2015. New Castle timely appealed.
The trial justice "may not substitute [his or her] judgment for that of the zoning board if [he or she] can conscientiously find that the board's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the whole record." Mill Realty Assocs. v. Crowe, 841 A.2d 668, 672 (R.I. 2004) 14 (quoting Apostolou v. Genovesi, 120 R.I. 501, 506-08, 388 A.2d 821 (1978)). Thus, when reviewing a zoning board's decision, this Court "must examine the entire record to determine whether 'substantial' evidence exists to support the board's findings." Salve Regina Coll. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Newport, 594 A.2d 878, 880 (R.I. 1991) (citing DeStefano v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Warwick, 122 R.I. 241, 245, 405 A.2d 1167 (1979)). The Superior Court also gives deference to the zoning board's findings because the zoning board is "presumed to have knowledge concerning those matters which are related to an effective administration of the zoning ordinance." Pawtucket Transfer Operations, LLC v. City of Pawtucket, 944 A.2d 855, 859 (R.I. 2008).
On appeal, New Castle argues that the Board's decision warrants reversal because it violated § 45-24-69(d). Preliminarily, New Castle argues that the Board's decision lacks sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law. New Castle contends that the Board's findings, inferences, conclusions, and decision in denying New Castle a special use permit and dimensional variances were arbitrary and lacked a reasonable basis in law and fact.

References: § 45
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 45