Opinion ID: 2310658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Zoning Board Record and Decision

Text: Given our ruling on the merits of this case, we have no need, and therefore, we decline to address the other procedural issues raised in the petitioners' brief. We take this opportunity, however, to caution zoning boards and their attorneys to make certain that zoning-board decisions on variance applications (whether use or dimensional) address the evidence in the record before the board that either meets or fails to satisfy each of the legal preconditions for granting such relief, as set forth in § 45-24-41(c) and (d). Such a specification of evidence in the decision will greatly aid the Superior Court, and, if necessary, this Court, in undertaking any requested review of these decisions. Indeed, because of the barebones nature of the record certified to us by the zoning board in this case, we deem it necessary to comment upon its insufficiency. This [C]ourt has stated on many occasions that a municipal board, when acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, must set forth in its decision findings of fact and reasons for the action taken. Irish Partnership v. Rommel, 518 A.2d 356, 358 (R.I.1986). Findings made by a zoning board must, of course, be factual rather than conclusional, and the application of the legal principles must be something more than the recital of a litany. Id. at 358-59. Here, it appears that one of the zoning board members, who later moved to grant the Caruso petition, had noted that he was doing so because he was apparently familiar with the very nice neighborhood where Caruso lived, observing that I have been through there several times. As this Court noted in DeStefano, 122 R.I. at 247, 405 A.2d at 1171, when a zoning board's decision relies upon one or more board members' special knowledge of a local area or condition, the board's decision reflecting its special knowledge will not be upheld    unless the record reveals the underlying facts or circumstances the board derived from its knowledge of the area. The record before us fails to reveal those underlying facts. Indeed, given a certified record in this case that discloses absolutely no evidence to support the zoning board's decision, it could not be upheld in any event. And because its decision contained neither findings of fact nor conclusions of law, the zoning board completely disregarded its obligation to spell out its conclusions and reasoning, a duty that is clearly set forth in Article VI, Section H(1) of the Johnston Zoning Ordinance adopted on December 14, 1994. See also Irish Partnership, 518 A.2d at 358-59. In short, we can only repeat what this Court stated many years ago in Souza v. Zoning Board of Review of Warren, 104 R.I. 697, 699-700, 248 A.2d 325, 327 (1968): Finally, we point out that it would be difficult to sustain the board's decision in any event in view of the inadequate record kept by it and also because of the inadequacy of the statement summarizing its decision. It might be appropriate to suggest again that, because of the complicated legal questions incident to all zoning hearings, zoning boards should avail themselves of the legal service of their municipal legal departments. This would, in our judgment, aid the boards in the administration of justice to all who come before them.