Court Opinion

ID: 9700056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:08:23.669429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:03.628989
License: Public Domain

Roberts, J.,
concurring. I agree with the conclusion reached by the majority and desire to state separately my reason for such concurrence.
The authority of a zoning board of review to make special exceptions to the terms of a zoning ordinance is limited to- those exceptions “upon which such board is authorized to pass under such ordinance.” General laws 1956, §45-24-19. The local legislature here, by virtue of that provision of the enabling act, provided in sec. 27 B of the ordinance that “When in its judgment the public convenience and welfare will be substantially served and the appropriate use of neighboring property will not be substantially or permanently injured, the board of review may in a specific case, after public notice and hearing and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, authorize special excep*457tions to the regulations herein established as follows * * (italics mine)
Anthony C. Fratantuono, for petitioners.
Frank W. Golemba, City Solicitor, James DiPrete, Jr., Assistant City Solicitor, for respondent.
Therefore it is my opinion that when the 'board of review makes a proper finding, as the majority hold that it did here, that granting the exception would substantially or permanently injure neighboring property, by the terms of the ordinance it is without authority to act affirmatively on the petition. See Hazen v. Zoning Board of Review, 90 R. I. 108, 155 A.2d 333.