Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Amber Preston v. The Zoning Board of Review of the Town of Hopkinton

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided February 27, 2017No. 2014-127-M.P. (WC 12-151)Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Goldberg

I concur with the majority’s holding that the finding by the Superior Court justice affirming the fourth condition imposed by the Hopkinton Zoning Board of Review (the zoning board or the board) is erroneous and flies in the face of the fundamental purpose of a zoning board — oversight of “matters relating to the real estate itself then under consideration and with the use to be made thereof, but not with the person who owns or occupies it.” Olevson v. Zoning Board of Review of Narragansett, 71 R.I. 303, 307, 44 A.2d 720, 722 (1945); see also Guiberson v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Murphy v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of South KingstownSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2008
  2. Guiberson v. Roman Catholic Bishop of ProvidenceSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1973
  3. Olevson v. Narragansett Zoning Bd.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1945
  4. OK PROPERTIES v. Zoning Bd. of ReviewSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1992
  5. Strauss v. Zoning Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1946

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API