Opinion ID: 2334846
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pascoag

Text: The town alleges that Pascoag failed to provide sufficient information for a finding of substantial completeness for three of the ten factors enumerated in § 45-53-6(f)(1)(i). In the town's view, the lack of information created a material deficiency in the application such that it could not be considered substantially complete. The town first contends that SHAB erred in considering § 45-53-6(f)(1)(i)(B), which requires review of a written list of variances, special use permits and waivers requested to local requirements and regulations, including local codes, ordinances, by-laws or regulations, including any requested waivers from the land development or subdivision regulations, and a proposed timetable for completion of the project. The town lists a litany of waivers that it says applies to the project that Pascoag failed to mention in its comprehensive permit application, including relief or variances for zoning and regulations relating to: maximum heights of structures, structural density, off-street parking and loading and on-street parking, land development review, multiunit dwellings, rubbish disposal, waiver of fees, preservation of rock outcrops and ridgelines, steep slopes, stormwater management, drainage calculations, building design, lot design standards for site distance, soil erosion, landscaping, and special grading provisions. The town also contends that a proposed timetable for the project was not submitted, except for the general statement that construction is expected to commence in later 2004 and continue at a pace dictated by market conditions. The town next alleges that Pascoag failed to provide [e]vidence of eligibility for a state or federal government subsidy, including a letter from the funding agency indicating the applicant and the project, as stated by § 45-53-6(f)(1)(i)(D). The town argues that the letter submitted by Pascoag from Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation (RIHMFC) referred to Granite Ridge, and did not mention Pascoag as the project proponent. Finally, the town alleges Pascoag failed to meet substantial completeness for § 45-53-6(f)(1)(i)(E), which pertains to [s]ite development plans showing the locations and outlines of proposed buildings; the proposed location, general dimensions and materials for streets, drives, parking areas, walks and paved areas; proposed landscaping improvements and open areas within the site; and the proposed location and types of sewage, drainage and water facilities. In this category, the town contends that Pascoag is deficient in several different ways: the outlines of the proposed building were different from the proposed building plans; no plans existed for sewer, water, or drainage facilities; there was no landscaping plan or a plan for sidewalks; the submitted plan did not include an explanation for siting buildings and parking facilities with substantial elevation changes; the right-of-way notes were inconsistent with the submitted drawings; and, finally, the submitted plan referred to land and development regulations that either were incorrect or did not exist. The town also notes that SHAB's internal Substantial Completeness Review Checklist for the Pascoag project indicated that several substantial completeness elements were not adequate as of February 13, 2004. SHAB's internal review noted that Pascoag was not substantially complete relative to: site control, a timetable for the project, a proposed location for sewage, drainage, and water, proposed locations for landscaping improvements and open-space areas, reports on existing conditions for the character of open areas and wetlands, and the master plan with respect to topography and open-space use. The internal review also listed partial completeness for Pascoag's submission of variances, special-use permits and waivers, its submission for the general dimensions of streets and other paved areas, its report on existing conditions for the location and nature of existing buildings, and the master plan with respect to slope areas and rock outcroppings. SHAB's October 17, 2005 written decision on the Pascoag project contains reasoning for its substantial completeness determination. With respect to the completeness of the requested waivers, variances, and exceptions, SHAB noted that Pascoag submitted a list of waivers in its comprehensive permit application, and that it provided a separate Waiver List prepared by an engineering firm. SHAB concluded that Pascoag has sufficiently identified its requested relief from the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the contested items are clearly identified on pages 4-5 of the Application and in the separate `Waiver List' provided by the engineering firm. SHAB noted further that the parties disputed whether a parking waiver was required, and commented that SHAB believes this particular issue and any other disputes regarding the scope of required relief are proper topics for evidentiary development during the Zoning Board's hearings on remand. SHAB also reviewed the sufficiency of the letter from RIHMFC. SHAB found that the letter attached to Pascoag's application was consistent in form and content compared to other letters that SHAB had accepted over the last several years. SHAB further determined that the fact that Pascoag was not identified by name was not a material issue and that the letter clearly related to Pascoag's proposed project. SHAB concluded that the zoning board had raised an unduly narrow and unpersuasive objection to the letter. Turning to the site development plans, SHAB's written decision listed the project plans, architectural plans, and architectural data submitted with the comprehensive permit application, including maps, existing condition and concept plans, and numerical acreage data. SHAB determined that the submitted materials sufficiently show the proposed buildings, driveways, roads, parking areas, detention pond, open areas, and sewer and water lines and that Pascoag has presented sufficiently detailed drawings and data to place the Zoning Board on notice regarding the material site development issues. SHAB acknowledged that Pascoag would have to provide landscape plans and drainage calculations in future zoning hearings, but stated that SHAB agrees with Pascoag's representation that the landscaping and drainage issues may be properly addressed as more advanced engineering data is produced later in the zoning process. SHAB summarized its findings about substantial completeness and the Pascoag project in the following manner: [T]he Zoning Board has acknowledged that Pascoag provided sufficient information as to seven of the ten elements in § 45-53-6(f)(1)(i)(A-J). These seven stipulated elements alone arguably may be sufficient to deem Pascoag's Application to be substantially complete. Regardless, Pascoag's Application also contains sufficient information regarding the three disputed elements. SHAB is convinced that Pascoag placed considerable time and effort into the drafting of its Application. Reviewing the Application in its entirety, there is ample information to allow the parties to proceed with meaningful evidentiary hearings addressing its merits. We disagree with SHAB's finding that the Pascoag project was substantially complete. This Court is unable to conclude that legally competent evidence exists in the record in light of SHAB's adopted definition of substantial completeness. Although Pascoag's comprehensive permit application contained several pages of information, engineering reports, and a few large maps, the submission as a whole hardly can be said to attain substantial completeness, defined by SHAB as having all parts or elements that are material, important, and essential. The comprehensive permit application did not include adequate information on drainage, stormwater runoff, and elevation plans. According to Pascoag, the proposed site for the project consisted of moderately rolling topography. We view this description with some doubt, given that SHAB's own internal review stated that extreme slopes [and a] ledge exist on site. A cursory review of the existing conditions plan map submitted with the application reveals that elevation for the site fluctuated between 470 and 520 feet. Nevertheless, we are unable to locate any discussion in the application relating to an elevation plan for the site. Indeed, SHAB's own internal review of the project noted that the submitted master plan did not contain topography at two-foot intervals, and that the master plan reached only partial compliance for delineating areas of greater than 15 percent slope and rock outcroppings. With respect to stormwater runoff and drainage, the application identifies the type of soil on site and the flood zone, but it provides no indication on how these issues would be impacted by the proposed buildings, pavement, and other improvements to the site. A minimal discussion of stormwater runoff and drainage for a moderately rolling site with seven large buildings seems to this Court to be a material, important, and essential element of a comprehensive permit application. Further, it is clear to us that SHAB's conclusion that Pascoag had presented sufficiently detailed drawings and data to place the Zoning Board on notice regarding the material site and development issues does not comport with its own definition of substantial completeness. A review of the September 19, 2005 SHAB hearing reveals SHAB's flawed application of its own substantial-completeness standard. In discussing Pascoag's application, various SHAB members commented: they're a work in progress, you have an opportunity to continue to complete; there was certainly enough information there to give the town some idea as to what was being proposed; and [i]t's my feeling certainly there is enough there that he should have at least got up to the plate.