Opinion ID: 2334846
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Purpose of the Moratorium

Text: Our analysis in this regard is informed by the language employed by the General Assembly and by the clear purpose it manifested when it imposed the moratorium on comprehensive permit applications by for-profit developers. The General Assembly specifically found that in January 2004 zoning boards of review were confronted by an unprecedented volume and complexity of development applications as a result of private for-profit developers using the [Low and Moderate Income Housing Act]   . Section 45-53-4(b)(1); see also Town of Smithfield, 924 A.2d at 808 (explaining that before the moratorium, zoning boards of review were swimming in an ocean of applications). Accordingly, the General Assembly forcefully declared that it was necessary to impose a moratorium to protect the public health and welfare in communities. Section 45-53-4(b)(1). Significantly, the General Assembly did not prohibit permanently the use of comprehensive permit applications by for-profit developers; rather, it imposed a moratorium, a postponement or temporary suspension to provide sufficient time to establish a reasonable and orderly process for the consideration of applications   , and to have communities prepare plans to meet low and moderate income housing goals. Section 45-53-4(b)(1). This clear statement of statutory purpose underscores the significance of the February 13, 2004 deadline that marked the beginning of the moratorium. Town of Smithfield, 924 A.2d at 805. The amendment to the act that authorized SHAB to determine the substantial completeness of comprehensive permit applications as of February 13, 2004, also spoke with a clear legislative intent. The obvious purpose of this subsection was to cull out eleventh-hour applications that were completed and filed hastily to avoid the well-publicized impending moratorium for all comprehensive permit applications submitted by for-profit developers. A SHAB determination under this subsection dictates whether an application will proceed under the pre-moratorium or post-moratorium permit review procedure. It is not a decision on the merits. New Harbor Village, LLC, 894 A.2d at 909. The General Assembly's purposes in imposing the moratorium and subsequently enacting the amendment for well-developed comprehensive permit applications provides the landscape for our review of SHAB's interpretation of substantial completeness. We conclude that SHAB's definition of substantial to mean material, important, and essential, and the term complete to mean having all parts or elements, warrants deference from this Court. SHAB's interpretation of substantial completeness is a reasonable definition that easily comports with the legislative purposes of the act. SHAB's definition makes clear that eleventh-hour comprehensive permit applications that were filed hastily are unlikely to be complete or to have all the necessary parts or elements to achieve substantial completeness. Further, given the General Assembly's interest in protecting the public health and welfare, SHAB's requirement that comprehensive permit applications include material, important, and essential components ensures that only those projects that give municipalities a comprehensive framework of the proposed housing development can proceed under pre-moratorium standards. Such completeness is necessary to meet the strict timelines required by the streamlined application process. Under these circumstances, SHAB's definition of substantial completeness is neither clearly erroneous nor unauthorized, and this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Were this the end of the story, this Court would affirm SHAB's written decisions and order that the three projects continue their journey through the approval process under pre-moratorium standards. A review of SHAB's September 19, 2005 hearing and its October 17, 2005 written decisions, however, reveals that SHAB misapplied its own definition in deciding the substantial completeness of the comprehensive permit applications submitted by Pascoag, Crystal Lake, and East Avenue. SHAB's decision-making focused upon sufficiency rather than substantial completeness, and it repeatedly considered whether the applications contained enough information for the town to get started.