Opinion ID: 1925267
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the zoning board treat Churchill & Banks's application as if it were substantially complete?

Text: Under § 45-53-6(f)(1)(ii), if the zoning board acted in a manner demonstrating that it considered the application substantially complete for the purposes of reviewing the application, the State Housing Appeals Board shall consider the application substantially complete. SHAB's determination that the zoning board treated Churchill & Banks's application as if it were substantially complete is entitled to deference from this Court, but only to the extent that our review of the record uncovers `legally competent evidence' to support that ruling. Mill Realty Associates, 841 A.2d at 672. We previously have defined legally competent evidence as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and means an amount more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance. Foster-Glocester Regional School Committee v. Board of Review, 854 A.2d 1008, 1012 (R.I.2004) (quoting Rhode Island Temps, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Training, Board of Review, 749 A.2d 1121, 1125 (R.I.2000)). The SHAB decision laments the lack of a bright line standard to facilitate its evaluation of the zoning board's conduct in this case. With no clear legal signposts to guide it, SHAB fell back on what it characterized as a `common sense' review of the nature and extent of the Zoning Board's proceedings. Although that choice was not a per se error of law, SHAB admittedly was venturing into uncharted waters; to the extent that its compass was calibrated on common sense rather than legal precedent, we probe the resulting legal conclusion somewhat more assiduously. There was minimal discussion, no fact-finding and no debatecommon sense, legal, or otherwiseover the evidence at issue before SHAB voted unanimously that the zoning board had treated Churchill & Banks's application as if it were substantially complete. The following excerpt from the October 17, 2005 meeting reflects the dialogue on this point in its entirety: CHAIRWOMAN SHEKARCHI:    The last issue is whether or not the zoning board acted in a manner determining whether the application was substantially complete, deemed to be substantially complete. MR. MAYNARD: Similar to the previous case, the activity that took place is sufficient to make this application substantially complete. MR. GOODRICH: I second that for the same reasons that the board acted previously and would lead the applicant to believe his project was being heard in an orderly manner. MS. MAXWELL: Motion that Churchill & Banks' application, that the Smithfield Zoning Board acted in a manner that the applicant could deem that his application was substantially complete. The previous case before SHAB had involved the Smithfield zoning board and another developer, but in that case SHAB had based its decision that the zoning board had treated the application as substantially complete on the number of hearings stated in the record and the fact that the developer had represented that they only had one more remaining witness, that they had essentially completed their case and they were prepared to rest after that witness. In Churchill & Banks's case, when the moratorium took effect, the developer had at least four more witnesses to present, had stated on the record that it may need to request more variances in the future, and had yet to submit a master plan. By implication then, the mere number of hearings that were held on Churchill & Banks's application carried significant evidentiary weight in SHAB's deliberations over whether the zoning board had treated Churchill & Banks's application as if it were substantially complete. SHAB's written decision provides some additional insight into the evidence that swayed its vote under § 45-53-6(f)(1)(ii). SHAB notes that the zoning board never certified Churchill & Banks's application as incomplete, and that it also did not ever cease the proceedings because of any concerns that the Application was purportedly incomplete. In summary, then, SHAB based its decision on the fact that the zoning board had held two hearings on Churchill & Banks's application, and had neither overtly certified the application as incomplete nor halted the hearings because of any deficiencies in the application. Examining the issue of the hearings first, we view with some skepticism the notion that by conducting two hearings and scheduling a third over the course of seven months the zoning board's actions constituted conclusive evidence that it considered Churchill & Banks's application to be substantially complete. When Churchill & Banks submitted its application in July 2003, the zoning board confronted something of a Hobson's choice. [11] As autumn approached, Smithfield faced the prospect of juggling five comprehensive permit applications for a reported total of more than 1,000 units, and each one was entitled to expedited review under § 45-53-4. Section 45-53-4, as amended by P.L.2002, ch. 416, § 1, required the zoning board to begin hearings on each application within thirty days of its submission. If the zoning board delayed hearings, any of the developers could have appealed to SHAB, and at that point SHAB would have had the power to usurp the zoning board's control over the review process and approve the comprehensive permits by itself. See §§ 45-53-5; 45-53-6(d) both enacted by P.L.1991, ch. 154, § 1; SHAB Regulation 2.08(ii). Faced with the risk of completely losing control over a project that would have a significant impact on the community, the zoning board proceeded with hearings on the application that Churchill & Banks submitted. Even after the initial hearing, the prospect of ceding oversight of the application to SHAB continued unabated until the passage of the moratorium because § 45-53-5 gave developers a right to appeal to SHAB for any delays in the process they deemed objectionable. See also SHAB Regulation 2.08(ii). Indeed, an admonition issued by Churchill & Banks's attorney at the February 11, 2004 zoning board meeting attests to the enduring force of that possibility: We could take the position that your failure to hear this, because you're going to take a vote on February 25, and if you vote not to allow us to go forward, we may very well take the position that you've denied our application. We will go to SHAB, we will appeal to SHAB. They may hear it as a denial and we may then move forward. And now what has happened? You have deprived yourselves of the right to do what the Statute gives you the right to do: Hear our evidence, decide our case, perhaps grant it, perhaps modify it, perhaps deny it.  (Emphases added.) Of course, on February 11, 2004, the zoning board did not continue hearings on the application, and true to the ominous hypothetical offered by Churchill & Banks, the case eventually ended up before SHAB. As it turned out, SHAB did not completely wrest control of the final disposition of Churchill & Banks's case from the zoning board, but it did order the zoning board to apply the less stringent standards of the pre-moratorium approval process. To buttress SHAB's observation that the zoning board failed to certify its application as incomplete, Churchill's brief points out that § 45-53-4(a)(2) confers upon zoning boards a duty to certify a deficient application as incomplete and notify the applicant of that certification. This certification requirement makes great sense, and it would have been helpful here, but it was passed after the moratorium. See P.L.2004, ch. 286, § 11 (enacted July 2, 2004). There was no such formal certification process in place when Churchill & Banks's application came before the zoning board. See § 45-53-4, as amended by P.L.2002, ch. 416, § 1. And although SHAB's finding that the zoning board never took a formal vote determining Churchill & Banks' Application to be incomplete is factually accurate, the evidentiary value which that purported omission may carry in hindsight dissipates precipitously when one considers it from the perspective of the zoning board dealing with the Low and Moderate Income Housing Act as it read before the moratorium. Moreover, it is not as if the zoning board never gave Churchill & Banks any indication that its application was not yet substantially complete. In an October 3, 2003 memo, the Smithfield building official listed twelve items that Churchill & Banks's application did not adequately address. And although it is true that the town solicitor indicated to Churchill & Banks's attorney that this memo should be considered only advisory, it nevertheless placed Churchill & Banks on notice concerning a number of holes in its application. Before the moratorium, the zoning board was swimming in an ocean of applications and struggling to keep its head above the unrelenting waves of documents and testimony. When taking the measure of its conduct, one has to dive into those same metaphorical waters; the view from the beach after the surf has subsided does not present the same picture. In concluding that the town treated Churchill & Banks's application as if it were substantially complete, SHAB apparently gave no consideration to two factors that this Court deems critical: (1) the statutory pressure the zoning board was under to convene and continue to hold hearings to comply with the pre-moratorium version of § 45-53-4; and (2) the content of the October 3, 2003 memo, which indicated that Churchill & Banks's application was deficient on twelve of the eighteen elements required by Smithfield zoning ordinances for a complete application. We conclude therefore, that there was insufficient evidence to support SHAB's finding that the zoning board acted in a manner that would indicate that it viewed Churchill & Banks's application to be substantially complete.