R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-41

A zoning board must grant the least variance relief necessary and cannot grant a side yard variance when the structure can meet the setback.

Lasalle v. Zoning and Platting Board of Review, 90-0728 (1993) · filed 1993-02-15(C)(4)

Additionally, G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-41 (C)(4) provides that in granting a variance, the zoning board of review shall grant the least relief necessary. Here, the Zoning Board was without substantial evidence to grant the 10-foot side yard deviation. The defendants' own witness, Mr. Blink, stated that the structure could be sited to conform with the side yard setbacks. (Tr. 13). Essentially, the Zoning Board abused its discretion and exceeded its authority in granting the defendants a 10-foot side yard variance where its decision to do so was legally and factually without support.

Section 45-24-41(c)(4) requires a variance to provide the least relief necessary.

Bomes v. Catauro, Pc97-5047 (1998) · filed 1998-09-17(c)(4)

The relief offered by a variance is to be the least relief necessary. G.L. (1956) § 45-24-41 (c)(4); Prov. Zon. Ord. Art. IX, § 902.3 (A)(4). The Board allowed relief from the permitted residential use in permitting the cat only animal hospital. Nothing is to be gleaned from the record demonstrating that this relief is the least relief necessary.

Section 45-24-41(c)(4) requires a variance to provide the least relief necessary.

Carpionato Prop., Inc. v. City of Cranston, Pc97-3962 (1998) · filed 1998-11-25(c)(4)

The relief offered by a variance is to be the least relief necessary. G.L. (1956) § 45-24-41 (c)(4); Cranston City Code Ch. 30, Art. VI., § 30-28 (4). An Applicant witness, Clifden O'Reilly, certified by the Board to be a real estate expert, testified that the proposed use represented the "least amount of variance . . . to have a reasonable use . . . of this tract of land." (R. at 78). Thus, again, the Board had before it competent evidence that the relief sought was to be the least relief necessary.

Section 45-24-41(c)(4) requires a dimensional variance applicant to show that the requested relief is the least relief necessary.

Forge Constr. Mgmt. v. Zoning Bd., Review, Burrillville, 00-1717 (2001) · filed 2001-08-30(c)(4)

In its written decision, the Board ultimately found that the appellant did not show that the requested relief constituted the least relief necessary. After review of the entire record, this Court finds the decision of the Board was supported by the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record. Substantial rights of the appellant have not been prejudiced. Accordingly, the decision of the Board is affirmed.

Section 45-24-41(c)(4) requires an applicant for a dimensional variance to show that the requested relief is the least necessary.

Wall v. Minifie, 2003-0130 (2004) · filed 2004-08-05(c)(4)

Absent evidence that a more conforming home could not be designed to eliminate the asserted hardship, Applicant could not demonstrate that the proposal requested the least relief necessary, as required by G.L. § 45-24-41 (c)(4).

Section 45-24-41(c)(4)'s least-relief requirement does not bar a dimensional variance merely because the owner could use the property another way without one.

Notarantonio v. Reall · filed 2007-08-30(c)(4)

Thus, the mere fact that another use could be put to the property is not a controlling factor in the determination of whether Quantum satisfies the criteria for a dimensional variance.

An applicant for a dimensional variance must show that the requested relief is the least relief necessary.

Kilroy v. Ginnerty · filed 2008-12-17(c)(4)

The Court finds that the Board's decision that Appellant failed to show that the requested relief is the "least relief necessary" is supported by the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of record.

Section 45-24-41(c)(2) requires that hardship supporting a variance not result from the applicant’s prior actions or primarily from a desire for greater financial gain.

Izzo v. Sullivan, 90-6731 (1994) · filed 1994-04-20(c)(2)

Pursuant to G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-41 (c)(2), a zoning ordinance which provides for the granting of a variance includes among its requirements "[t]hat the hardship is not the result of any prior action to the applicant and does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain;" and further, "(4)[t]hat the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary." ... However, at the hearing before the Board, the plaintiff failed to meet his requisite burden of demonstrating a deprivation of all beneficial use were he to be denied the variance.

Section 45-24-41(c) requires evidence of qualifying hardship and the least relief necessary to grant a variance.

Town of Cumberland v. Cumberland Zoning Board, 93-4942 (1995) · filed 1995-08-08(c)

In order to grant a variance the Board must find that the ordinance deprives the landowner of all beneficial use of his land. The evidence presented must demonstrate that (1) the hardship is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land, (2) the hardship is not the result of the landowner and is not motivated by a desire to realize greater financial gain, (3) the granting of the variance will not alter or impair the area or intent of the zoning ordinance and (4) that the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary. R.I.G.L. § 45-24-41 (c). The Houles have the burden of proof. The record is devoid of the Houles presenting any such evidence.

Section 45-24-41(c) requires an applicant for a dimensional variance to show that applying the zoning ordinance creates more than a mere inconvenience and that the requested relief meets the hardship and minimum-relief requirements.

Beatini v. Johnston Zoning Board of Review, 94-2863 (1995) · filed 1995-10-19(c)

In order to grant the dimensional variance requested, the applicant has the burden to establish and the Board must find that the Zoning Ordinance, as applied, creates more than a mere inconvenience for the applicant. The evidence presented must demonstrate that (1) the hardship is due to the unique characteristics of the subject lot, (2) the hardship is not the result of the landowner's actions and is not motivated by a desire to realize greater financial gain, (3) the granting of the variance will not alter or impair the area or intent of the ordinance, and (4) that the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary. (R.I.G.L. § 45-24-41 (c)). ... Accordingly, the evidence before the Board was sufficient to find that the applicants would suffer more than a mere inconvenience were the application denied.

Section 45-24-41(C) requires a variance applicant to show hardship arising from the property's unique characteristics rather than the surrounding area, no self-created hardship, no change to the area's general character, and the least relief necessary.

Scottish Rite Cathedral v. Zoning Board of Review, Cranston, 96-6535 (1997) · filed 1997-11-19(C)

The party applying for the variance must demonstrate that the unnecessary hardship results because of the unique characteristics of the land and not the general characteristics of the surrounding area. Additionally, the petitioning party must show that the current hardship is not the result of his or her prior action, that the variance does not alter the general character of the surrounding area, and that the relief sought is the least relief necessary. G.L. 1956 § 45-24-41 (C). ... The record evidences that Scottish Rite did not demonstrate to the Board a deprivation of all beneficial use.

Section 45-24-41(C) requires evidence satisfying the variance standards; those standards are not requirements for a special use permit.

Mendes v. Smithfield Zoning Board of Review, 95-1669 (1996) · filed 1996-02-28(C)

Pursuant to G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-41 (C), the granting of a variance (emphasis added) requires the Board to have before it sufficient evidence to satisfy these standards. ... However, meeting these standards is not laid out as a requirement for granting a special use permit.

Section 45-24-41(d)(1) bars a zoning board from considering neighboring nonconforming uses or permitted uses in an adjacent district when deciding a variance application.

Mill Realty Associates v. Crowe, 01-135 (2002) · filed 2002-05-10(d)(1)

Pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 45-24-41 (d)(1), the Zoning Board of Review reviews each zoning application individually. In an application for a variance, the Board cannot consider other "nonconforming uses of neighboring land or structures in the same district [or] permitted use of lands and structures in an adjacent district" in rendering its decision.

Section 45-24-41(c) requires variance applicants to show a hardship tied to the property, not caused by their own actions or primarily by a desire for financial gain, and to show that the variance preserves the area's character and grants the least relief necessary.

Prasol v. Rzewuski · filed 2011-12-05(c)

Furthermore, as a matter of R.I.G.L. § 45-24-41 (c), variance applicants must present evidence to a zoning board of review demonstrating the following factors: 1) That the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area; and is not due to a physical or economic disability of the applicant, 2) That the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant and does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain; 3) That the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance or the comprehensive plan upon which the ordinance is based; and 4) That the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary. The Zoning Board must apply these factors in weighing its decision. ... The Board did not clearly err in its factual findings and conclusions of law.

Section 45-24-41(c)(3) does not permit a board to deny a dimensional variance based on the effect of a lawfully permitted use on the surrounding area's character.

Trenteseau v. Town of Lincoln Zoning Bd, Pc · filed 2008-09-09(c)(3)

This Court finds that Mr. Trenteseau's subdivision and proposed construction of a new single-family home was a lawfully permitted use, which, by legislative determination, does not affect the general character of the area.

Section 45-24-41(D)(1) requires a use variance applicant to show that complying with the zoning ordinance would cause a loss of all beneficial use of the property.

Shango Investments, Inc. v. Carlson, 93-0241 (1994) · filed 1994-09-28(D)(1)

Under G.L. 1956 (1993 Reenactment) § 45-24-41 (D) (1) and Section 904.2 of the Providence Zoning Ordinance, before the Board may grant a use variance an applicant must show that strict conformance to the zoning ordinance would result in a loss of all beneficial use of the property in question. ... Accordingly, the Board did not err in finding that Shango had not met its burden of proving loss of all beneficial use.

Section 45-24-41(C) requires an applicant for a use variance to show hardship tied to the property's unique characteristics, rather than the surrounding area, the applicant's prior actions, or a desire for greater financial gain.

Elmhurst Preservation Society v. Zoning Board of Review, 94-2204 (1995) · filed 1995-01-26(C)

The true variance under R.I.G.L. § 45-24-41 (C) (1), as opposed to a dimensional variance, requires the petitioner to demonstrate that "hardship" is due to the "unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area." Moreover, there must be evidence in the record "[t]hat hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant and does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain." § 45-24-41 (C) (2).

Section 45-24-41(c) requires an applicant for a use variance to show that applying the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of all beneficial use.

Ruzzano v. Zoning Board of Review, City of Pawtucket, 95-2963 (1996) · filed 1996-05-24(c)

The standards to be met in obtaining a use variance are enunciated in G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-41 (c) entitled "General Provisions-Variances" and Article 9-10 (c) of the Pawtucket Zoning Ordinance entitled "Variances and Special Use Permits." The petitioner is entitled to a variance upon proof that literal adherence to the zoning ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, i.e., deprive the petitioner of all beneficial use of the property amounting to a confiscation without just compensation.

Section 45-24-41 requires a use variance applicant to show that enforcing the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of all beneficial use.

Carpionato v. Cedar Crest Nursing Centre, 97-4016 (1999) · filed 1999-03-23(c)(1)

The requirements for a use variance in the instant case are set forth in § 30-28 of the Code of the City of Cranston and they mirror those contained in G.L. 1956 § 45-24-41 . ... The standard for a use variance requires a deprivation of all beneficial use of the property.

Section 45-24-41(D) requires a use-variance applicant to show that denial would deprive the property of all beneficial uses.

Lng v. Loqa · filed 2000-01-07(D)

However, in order to obtain such a variance, Algonquin would be required to show that, without a variance, it would be deprived of all beneficial uses of its property. See R.I.Gen.Laws § 45-24-41(D); Providence Zoning Code, § 904.2. Since Algonquin currently is operating a natural gas facility at the site, such a showing would be impossible.

Section 45-24-41 requires an applicant for a use variance to present evidence satisfying its statutory prerequisites.

Place v. Painted Warriors, 02-2843 (2003) · filed 2003-09-05

Moreover, the record is devoid of any evidence that the applicant satisfied any of the other proof requirements of R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-41 that are necessary prerequisites to its obtaining a use variance.

Section 45-24-41(c)(1) requires record evidence that a variance applicant’s hardship arises from unique characteristics of the land or structure rather than the surrounding area.

Coto Technology v. Zoning Board of Review, 02-3575 (2003) · filed 2003-09-23(c)(1)

To grant a variance, a zoning board of review must receive and enter into the record evidence that the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the "unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area." R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-41 (c)(1). ... Because the record indicates that the Board reached its decision in reliance on the knowledge it acquired during its inspection, its granting of the variance is supported by legally competent evidence sufficient to support its findings as to hardship.

Section 45-24-41(D)(1) requires evidence that property cannot yield any beneficial use under the zoning ordinance before a use variance may be granted.

Sea View Realty Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review, Cranston, 94-2949 (1996) · filed 1996-10-09(D)(1)

The Board's final finding, that there was no evidence of an "undue hardship" presented at the hearing, is consistent with § 45-24-41 (D), which requires that the evidence establish that no beneficial use can be made of the property.

Section 45-24-41(d)(1) requires proof that the property cannot yield any beneficial use under the zoning ordinance for a use variance; that requirement does not apply to a dimensional variance.

Marsocci v. Pilozzi, 03-2254 (r.I.super. 2006) · filed 2006-06-02(d)(1)

This conclusory statement is drawn verbatim from R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-41 (d) (1). Yet that statute makes it clear that such a standard of proof is inapplicable here to plaintiff Marscocci's application for dimensional relief but applies only to applications for use variances.

Section 45-24-41(c) requires a dimensional variance applicant to show a qualifying hardship, no impairment of the surrounding area or zoning ordinance, and that the requested relief is the least necessary.

Miale v. Johnston Zoning Board of Review, 93-3076 (1995) · filed 1995-09-11(c)

Plaintiff's present hardship is created by the lack of sufficient area of the Lots 352, 353 and 354 and not due to the surrounding area. Further, the record reveals that this hardship was the result of the prior decision of the Zoning Board granting a variance on one substandard lot, leaving Plaintiff with a second substandard lot. Such a variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the purpose of the zoning ordinance as most of the houses which surround Lots 352, 353 and 354 are built on lots of similar size. A dimensional variance would also be the least relief necessary as Plaintiff is not being granted relief from any of the other dimensional regulations such as side yard or set-back requirements and Lots 352, 353 and 354 are zoned residential, which is what Plaintiff intends to use the lots.

Section 45-24-41(D)(2) requires a dimensional variance applicant to show more than a mere inconvenience; dimensional relief applies only to a permitted use.

Church Community Housing Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review, Nc97-0409 (1998) · filed 1998-03-01(D)(2)

Viti articulates the standard a petitioner must satisfy in order to attain zoning board approval for a dimensional variance. Viti v. Zoning Board of Review, 92 R.I. 59 , 166 A.2d 211 (1960), R.I.G.L. § 45-24-41 (D)(2). The petitioner seeking such relief must satisfy the "more than a mere inconvenience" standard. ... The record demonstrates that Church is requesting a dimensional variance for a use that is not permitted under the ordinance and furthermore is not seeking the least relief necessary under the Tiverton Zoning Ordinance, Art. XVII, § 2 (a)(5).

Section 45-24-41(D)(2)’s hardship standard was satisfied where building streets to meet frontage requirements would undermine the ordinance’s goal of preserving open space and rural character.

Quattrocchi v. Finney, 97-0300 (1999) · filed 1999-08-06(D)(2)

The language set forth in Sections 606 and 607(2) of the Ordinance mirrors the language contained in G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-41 . ... Furthermore, the evidence contained in the record demonstrated that the denial of Cajacet's variance would amount to more than a mere convenience as the construction of streets would defeat the purpose of preserving the open space, the scenery, and rural character of the area in accordance with the Ordinance.

Section 45-24-41(C) and (D) require evidence of hardship tied to the property's unique characteristics and, for a dimensional variance, hardship amounting to more than a mere inconvenience.

Sciacca v. Caruso, 98-1164 (1999) · filed 1999-09-15(C) and (D)

The language set forth in Sections O (2) and (3)(b) of the Ordinance mirrors the language contained in § 45-24-41 (C) and (D). In reconsidering its vote on defendants' application, the Zoning Board had before it sufficient evidence to support its decision to grant defendants a dimensional variance in conformity with the provisions of Article III, Section O (2) and (3)(b) of the Ordinance. The record indicates that the subdivision of the property approved by the Planning Board created an undersized lot such that the hardship resulted from the unique characteristics of the property and not the general characteristics of the surrounding area. ... Without the requested dimensional relief, Caruso would be unable to use the property for its permitted use of building a residential dwelling.

Section 45-24-41 allows a dimensional variance when the required hardship standards are met, including hardship amounting to more than a mere inconvenience.

Regine v. Coastal Resources Management Council, 93-0423a (2000) · filed 2000-10-05

The language set forth in Sections 606 and 607(2) of the Ordinance mirrors the language contained in G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-41 . ... The evidence contained in the record demonstrated that the denial of the Cannons' variance would amount to more than a mere inconvenience. ... Without the requested dimensional relief, the Cannons would be unable to achieve the full enjoyment of a permitted use.

Section 45-24-41(d)(2), as amended, no longer requires a dimensional variance applicant to show that no reasonable alternative permits beneficial use of the property.

Zarrella v. Zoning Board, Review, Town, New Shoreham, 01-0185 (2002) · filed 2002-10-15(d)(2)

The newly amended subsection (d)(2) has eliminated the requirement that an applicant show that "there is no other reasonable alternative to enjoy a legally permitted beneficial use of one's property." ... Accordingly, this Court remands Zarella's application to the board so that the board may consider his application under the newly amended subsection (d)(2).

At the time of the hearing, § 45-24-41 required a dimensional variance applicant to show that no other reasonable alternative existed for enjoying a legally permitted use.

Kaira Cons., Inc. v. the N. Providence Zoning Bd. of Rev., 01-3817 (2003) · filed 2003-05-13(d)(2)

At the time of the hearing, the applicable zoning provision, G.L. 1956 § 45-24-41 , required that the applicant demonstrate that "no other reasonable alternative" exists for the enjoyment of a legally permitted use before a variance is properly issued.

Section 45-24-41(c)(1) requires a dimensional variance applicant to show that the hardship arises from unique characteristics of the property, rather than the applicant’s physical or economic circumstances.

Lapolla Mtr. Sales, Inc. v. Cranston Zoning Bd. of Review, 01-5951 (2003) · filed 2003-01-22(c)(1)

The appellants' burden pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 45-24-41 (c)(1) was to demonstrate that the hardship for which relief was sought was due to the unique characteristics of the subject lot and not to a physical or economic disability attributable to them. ... Consequently, the record reflects that the appellants did not satisfy this prong of G.L. 1956 § 45-24-41 (c)(1).

For dimensional variance applications heard before the June 28, 2002 amendment, subsection (d)(2) required applicants to show no other reasonable alternative for enjoying a legally permitted use; the amendment did not apply retroactively.

Mdg Integrity v. Zoning Bd. of Rev., Town, Johnston, 02-2234 (2003) · filed 2003-03-11(d)(2)

With respect to the appellants' contention that the recent re-codification of G.L. 1956 § 45-24-41 (d)(2) was applicable to their petition as of November 11, 2001, this Court notes that the re-codified statute does not have such retroactive effect. At the time of the November 11, 2001 hearing the applicable standard that the appellants must have met with respect to their request for dimensional relief was the heightened "no reasonable alternative" burden.

Relief from parking requirements for a permitted use is a dimensional deviation, which requires a showing of hardship greater than mere inconvenience.

Goddard v. Zoning Board of Review, Pc 98-4864 (1999) · filed 1999-07-13(D)(2)

Although the board granted Hillel permission to deviate from the required number of parking spaces, and did so under the auspices of a special use permit, this Court is of the opinion that this request is, in fact, a dimensional deviation rather than a special-use.

At the time of the hearing, § 45-24-41 required dimensional variance applicants to seek the least relief necessary and show that no reasonable alternative would allow enjoyment of a permitted use.

Altomari v. Doran, C.A.no Pc 2001 &8212 4081 (2002) · filed 2002-11-26(c)(4) and (d)(2)

These subsections simply require that Lonardo request the least relief necessary from the Board, and that he demonstrate that the hardship from which relief is sought amounts to more than a mere inconvenience, meaning that he had no other reasonable alternative than to seek the requested relief. Again, the record demonstrates that he has not satisfied his burden of proof with regard to these elements.

Section 45-24-41(d)(2) requires an applicant for a dimensional variance to show that denial would cause hardship amounting to more than a mere inconvenience.

Carvalho v. Zbr, 04-6417 (r.I.super. 2005) · filed 2005-07-11(d)(2)

This change in the statutory language reinstated the less stringent Viti Doctrine, which requires that the applicant for a dimensional variance show only that if the variance is denied the applicant will suffer an adverse impact amounting to more than an inconvenience.

Section 45-24-41(d)(2) requires an applicant for a dimensional variance to show that denial would cause more than a mere inconvenience.

Cobble Hill Dev. v. Zoning Board · filed 2007-09-28(d)(2)

Thus, according to statute and precedent, the proper test to apply to an application for a dimensional variance is whether the hardship the applicant would suffer if the variance is not granted amounts to more than a mere inconvenience. In its 2005 decision on the Martinellis' application, the Zoning Board did not apply the "more than a mere inconvenience" standard required under R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-41 (d)(2).

Section 45-24-41 requires a dimensional variance applicant to show hardship exceeding mere inconvenience and satisfy the four requirements in subsection (c).

Mercurio v. the Zoning Board of Review, Wc · filed 2007-11-20(c) and (d)

Given all of the foregoing, this Court finds that Appellants presented substantial evidence before the Board showing that their application meets all of the requirements contained within G.L. 1956 §§ 45-24-41 (c) and (d).

Section 45-24-41 requires a dimensional variance to be the least relief necessary and requires the applicant to show that denial would cause more than a mere inconvenience.

Crispi v. Brian Monfils Builders, Inc., 01-3639 (2004) · filed 2004-09-10(c)(4), (d)(2)

Accordingly, the Board had before it evidence that granting said variance constituted the least relief necessary. ... The record demonstrates that Mr. Charette presented sufficient evidence at the first hearing that denial of the variance would amount to more than a mere inconvenience.

Section 45-24-41(d)(2) requires an applicant for a dimensional variance to show that denial would cause more than a mere inconvenience.

Kahn v. City of Newport Zoning Bd of Review · filed 2007-08-17(d)(2)

In addition to the four statutory requirements, the applicant must show that its hardship suffered "if the dimensional variance is not granted amounts to more than a mere inconvenience." G.L. 1956 § 45-24-41 (d)(2); Ordinance § 17.108.010(B)(6)(b); Viti v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Providence , 92 R.I. 59 , 64-65 , 166 A.2d 211 , 213 (1960). ... Accordingly, the Zoning Board's Decision, finding that N.I. suffered more than a mere inconvenience, is not clearly erroneous.

Section 45-24-41(c)(3) permits a parking variance when the evidence shows that the relief will not alter the surrounding area's general character or impair the zoning ordinance's purpose.

Frenchtown Five v. Verdi · filed 2010-12-21(c)(3)

This evidence is sufficient to support the Board's conclusion that relief from the parking requirements would not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance.

Section 45-24-41(d)(2) requires an applicant for a dimensional variance to show that denial would cause more than a mere inconvenience; difficulty accommodating visiting family does not meet that standard.

Buffum v. Town of Barrington Zoning Board · filed 2011-07-28(d)(2)

Here, the Buffums also seek a variance to ease the difficulties of having a large family. As in the DiDonato case, such difficulties do not amount to more than a mere inconvenience.

Section 45-24-41(c)(2) requires that a variance applicant’s hardship not result from its prior action or primarily from a desire for greater financial gain.

Tobin v. Carlson, C.A. 96-3633 (1998) · filed 1998-01-23(c)(2)

Section 45-24-41 (c)(2) requires that the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief not be the result of any prior action of the applicant or result primarily from the applicant's desire to realize greater financial gain. ... Accordingly, the record demonstrates that the hardship from which Hillside sought relief was not self-created.

Section 45-24-41(c)(2) bars a variance when the applicant’s prior action creates the alleged hardship, including by subdividing a conforming lot into undersized lots.

Sciacca v. Caruso · filed 2001-04-02(c)(2)

Given this statutory language and the circumstances concerning how Caruso created the substandard lot that was the subject of her variance request, the zoning board’s grant of a dimensional variance in this case improperly ignored the “prior action of the applicant” in creating the alleged hardship.

Section 45-24-41 does not permit a dimensional variance to legalize a subdivision created illegally by a prior owner.

Peeptoad Road Associates v. Zoning Board of Review, 02-4719 (2003) · filed 2003-11-07(c)(2)

As Peeptoad's predecessors would not have been able to correct the illegality by seeking a variance because they created the illegality, the Board is similarly without power to sanction the illegal subdivision through the grant of a variance.

Section 45-24-41(c)(2) bars a variance for a hardship the applicant created by violating a zoning ordinance.

Romanik v. Meinertz · filed 2007-08-27(c)(2)

Accordingly, a hardship may not be "self-created"; in other words, one may not act in violation of an ordinance and then apply for a variance to relieve the illegality.

A self-created hardship does not support a dimensional variance, and failure to satisfy that requirement makes the separate inconvenience inquiry unnecessary.

Iadevaia v. Town of Scituate Zoning Board · filed 2011-06-16(c)(2)

Based on the Board's conclusions that the Appellants were unable to satisfy either § 45-24-41 (c)(2) (that hardship was not self created) and (3) (that the variances would not impair the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan) this Court need not address whether the Plaintiff's hardship amounted to "more than a mere inconvenience," which was similarly not addressed by the Board.

Section 45-24-41(c)(2) requires a variance applicant to show that the hardship did not result from the applicant’s prior actions.

Pezza v. Johnston Zoning Board of Review, 05-4736 (r.I.super. 2006) · filed 2006-08-29(c)(2)

However, the Zoning Board found that Appellant created his own hardship through his development of the land surrounding Lot 305, which violates § 45-24-41 (c) (2).

Section 45-24-41(b) does not require written notice of a continued zoning hearing.

Ed's Construction v. Zoning Board of Review of Cumberland, 98-5077 (2000) · filed 2000-08-25(b)

This Court, finding the language of this section is clear and unambiguous, gives the words their plain meaning which is that the statute does not require notice for a continuance.

Section 45-24-41 does not require supplemental written notice when a properly noticed variance hearing is continued to a date announced at the hearing.

Read v. City of Cranston Zoning Board · filed 2011-04-05

Upon due consideration of the above course of proceedings, the Court is satisfied that the Board wholly complied with the applicable notice provisions codified in G.L. §§ 1956 45-24-41 and 45-24-53 as well as Zoning Ordinance § 17.10.070. Contrary to Appellants' argument, the Board was under no obligation to issue supplemental written notice of the continued hearing date.

Section 45-24-41 requires notice of a variance hearing to be mailed to the applicant and abutting property owners; permits issued without the required notice may be revoked.

Malouin v. Moore · filed 2009-03-06

Under Rhode Island law, notice of a variance hearing must be given to abutting property owners. Section 45-24-41 ("Notice of hearing shall be sent by first class mail to the applicant, and to at least all those who would require notice under § 45-24-53 ."). The Zoning Decision did not become effective because the stipulation "[tjhat Affidavit of Notice be filed before [the] Decision shall become effective" was never satisfied. Because the permits were issued without notice, and thus unlawfully, West Warwick was entitled to revoke them.

Section 45-24-41(d)(2) requires a zoning board to include all findings of fact in its decision.

Famiglietti v. Forge Construction Management, 01-103 (2001) · filed 2001-11-21(d)(2)

The Legislature requires that the "zoning board of review shall include in its decision all findings of fact." G.L. 1956 § 45-24-41 (d)(2). ... The Board failed to make findings of fact or state the conditions that led to its approval of the application for a special use permit.

A variance decision must include factual findings addressing the standards in subsections (c) and (d) so a court can review it.

Reid v. Town of North Providence Zoning Bd. · filed 2006-10-17(c), (d)

The Decision is indeed barren of any factual findings related to the standard imposed by § 45-24-41 (c) and (d).

Section 45-24-41 requires evidence addressing the variance standards, including whether denial of a dimensional variance would cause more than a mere inconvenience.

Demasi v. Town of N. Providence Zoning Bd. · filed 2006-10-18(c), (d)

In addition, G.L. 1956 § 45-24-41 (d) requires, in relevant part, that "[t]he zoning board of review shall, in addition to the above standards, require that evidence is entered into the record of the proceedings showing that: . . . (2) in granting a dimensional variance, that the hardship suffered by the owner of the subject property if the dimensional variance is not granted amounts to more than a mere inconvenience. . . ." ... The Court finds that the Board failed to make the requisite findings of fact to allow for proper judicial review.

Section 45-24-41(c) and (d) require a zoning board to address the evidence bearing on each prerequisite for a variance; conclusory recitals do not suffice.

Smalley v. Cumberland Zoning Bd. of Review · filed 2006-10-26(c) and (d)

The Board's decision reveals almost nothing about how the Board arrived at its conclusions that Soares had satisfied the statutory test imposed for the granting of a dimensional variance. Accordingly, this Court must remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A variance decision under § 45-24-41(c) and (d) must address the evidence for each legal precondition and support its conclusions with factual findings.

Bromley v. Carlson · filed 2006-12-01(c) and (d)

Particularly with variance applications, zoning boards and their attorneys should "make certain that [decisions] . . . address the evidence in the record before the board that either meets or fails to satisfy each of the legal preconditions for granting scuh relief, as set forth in § 45-24-41 (c) and (d)." Sciacca v. Caruso, 769 A.2d 578 , 585 (R.I. 2001). In the instant matter, the Board inserted conclusory boilerplate language, unsupported by any factual findings.

Section 45-24-41(c) and (d) requires a zoning board to address each applicable variance standard when granting a dimensional variance.

Reid v. Town of North Providence Zoning · filed 2007-10-30(c) and (d)

The standard under § 45-24-41 (c) and (d) — provided in full supra — delineates the findings that the Board must make. Instead of addressing each of these elements, the Board has made conclusions only as to some of them.