Opinion ID: 6352896
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Map 11.3

Text: The plaintiffs assign error to the hearing justice in not finding persuasive their argument that Map 11.3 was proof that the Comprehensive Plan establishes a maximum height on the subject parcel of one hundred feet and that the Amendment therefore is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. They add that Map 11.3 does not contemplate any future zoning change for the subject parcel. They further contend that Map 11.3 is meant to “designate those areas wherein the Comprehensive Plan contemplates future zoning changes, and those that are to remain the same” and that the hearing justice found it not to be binding “without any plausible discussion.” Lastly, they further aver that “[c]ompletely absent from the Record is any consideration of Map 11.3,” and they add that “counsel for Fane incorrectly represented during the approval process that the Comprehensive Plan did not contain height designations.” - 27 - Section 45-22.2-6(b)(2)(ii) requires that a comprehensive plan include a map providing for “[f]uture land use illustrating the desired patterns of development, density, and conservation as defined by the comprehensive plan[.]” It is clear from a review of the Comprehensive Plan that this describes Map 11.2. The Comprehensive Plan titles Map 11.2 “Future Land Use” and states that that map “depicts specific land use designations for each area of the city and is the Official Land Use Map.” It further states that Map 11.2 “provides the basis for the Zoning Ordinance.” Section 45-22.2-6(b)(2)(iii) requires that a comprehensive plan include a map identifying “discrepancies between future land uses and existing zoning use categories.” It is clear to us that this statutory section refers to Map 11.3, which is entitled “Future Zoning Change Areas Map.” The Comprehensive Plan itself notes that “there are inconsistencies between the City’s existing zoning ordinance and the proposed future land use,” and it provides that those inconsistencies are identified in Map 11.3. Map 11.3 does designate the subject parcel as D-1-100 and does not include it in a “proposed zoning map change area[.]” After extensive review of the Comprehensive Plan, the two maps in question, and the record in this case, we are of the opinion that the hearing justice did not err in concluding that plaintiffs’ assertions with respect to Map 11.3 were not sufficient to rebut the presumption of validity of the Amendment. The - 28 - Comprehensive Plan itself states that Map 11.3 is meant only to illustrate discrepancies between current zoning and proposed future land use; rather, it is Map 11.2 which “illustrat[es] the desired patterns of development, density, and conservation,” § 45-22.2-6(b)(2)(ii), and is the “Official Land Use Map.” It does not appear to us, after reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, that Map 11.3 was intended to provide a specific height requirement for all future zoning of the area in question. Our conclusion in this regard is buttressed by the fact that Map 11.2 designates the subject parcel as “Downtown/Mixed Use” and by the fact that Table 11.2 specifically notes that in downtown/mixed-use areas, “[i]n order to promote economic development while maintaining compatibility between uses, sub‐districts may be established to address building height   .” The Comprehensive Plan also states that, in mixed-use areas, “greater residential density and building[] heights could be accommodated to create a more efficient pattern of development and protect the character of the residential neighborhoods.” It would be illogical to interpret Map 11.3 as providing a cap on building height while Map 11.2—the Official Land Use Map—and Table 11.2 specifically allow for sub-districts to address building height in the same area. What is more, the Comprehensive Plan refers on numerous occasions to the possibility of having greater building heights in some areas. Objective LU9, - 29 - Strategy C articulates an objective as being to “[i]dentify areas that could support taller buildings and amend land use regulations to allow for greater height in those areas” and Strategy D articulates an objective as being to “[a]mend regulations as needed to establish incentives for greater height and density in exchange for affordable units, public space investment, support for neighborhood amenities, sustainable design, etc.” In addition, Objective BE3, Strategy A articulates an objective as being to “[i]dentify and evaluate those areas of the city where increased building height and density can be accommodated, allowing for compatible transition to surrounding areas.” The plaintiffs contend that, by not reading Map 11.3 to require a height limit of one hundred feet for the subject parcel, the hearing justice violated the canon of statutory construction to the effect that “[t]he Legislature is presumed to have intended each word or provision of a statute to express a significant meaning, and the Court will give effect to every word, clause, or sentence, whenever possible.” Koback v. Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island, 252 A.3d 1247, 1251 (R.I. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, we note that that canon of construction is not absolute, and to give it the effect which plaintiffs seek would be to interpret Map 11.3 without reference to the context of the rest of the document of which it is a part, without any evidence that it was intended to be so interpreted. See Ryan v. City of Providence, 11 A.3d 68, 71 (R.I. 2011) (stating - 30 - that “it would be foolish and myopic literalism to focus narrowly on one statutory section without regard for the broader context” and that “[w]e    consider the entire statute as a whole; individual sections must be considered in the context of the entire statutory scheme, not as if each section were independent of all other sections”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the hearing justice did not err in determining that plaintiffs’ “evidence as to Map 11.3” was “insufficient to rebut the presumption of validity” of the Amendment.12