Opinion ID: 2258462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the Act Applies to Subdivisions of Land

Text: The first issue raised by Coventry is whether the act in effect at the time Coventry passed upon Omni's proposal encompassed residential subdivision applications or whether it was limited to proposals for development of multifamily housing. [6] Originally enacted in 1991, the act clearly contemplated expedited review and approval of multifamily rental units. This conclusion is supported by the provisions of the act that establish the minimum standard for low and moderate income dwelling units based, in part, upon the number of low and moderate rental units existing in a given community, and the act's emphasis on rehabilitation of existing structures. [7] As the SHAB decision noted, the act and SHAB's own regulations were drafted in such a way as to apply most clearly to multi-family housing, [however,] nothing in the statute or regulations prevents a developer from proposing a residential subdivision as affordable housing. We agree with this finding but recognize, as did the Legislature by its recent amendment to the act, see note 6, ante, the difficulties encountered by a zoning board in passing upon a single application for a special exception to construct a major subdivision. [8] Significantly, in G.L. 1956 chapter 23 of title 45 entitled Subdivision of Land, the Legislature addressed the need for careful and uniform review of subdivision proposals and declared that [t]he responsibilities of the local governments in regulating land development and subdivision have changed, increased in complexity, and expanded to include additional areas of concern[.] Section 45-23-29(b)(3). Further, [n]ot all instances of land development or subdivision are sufficiently reviewed prior to recording or construction, resulting in unwarranted environmental impacts, financial impacts on private individuals and communities, and inappropriate design[.] Section 45-23-29(b)(5). Accordingly, in light of these findings, the General Assembly declared, inter alia, its intention to unify all local procedures for review and approval of subdivision applications, including a standard procedure for integrating the approvals of state regulatory agencies. The Legislature further required that  all proposed land developments and subdivisions [shall be] reviewed by local officials, following a standard process, prior to recording in local land evidence records. Section 45-23-29(c)(5). (Emphasis added.) These statutory requirements for all major land development or subdivision applications provide for one or more pre-application meetings in order for the applicant to meet with appropriate officials, boards and/or commissions, planning staff, and, where appropriate, state agencies, for advice as to the required steps in the approvals process   . Section 45-23-35(a). Planning review of a major subdivision, such as the plan currently before this Court, consists of three stages of review, master plan, preliminary plan and final plan   . Also required is a public informational meeting and a public meeting. Section 45-23-39(b). Chief among these uniform statutory requirements is the signature and recording of the final plat that constitutes acceptance by the municipality of any street or other public improvement. Clearly, the usual course of subdivision review by a planning board spans several months or years to complete and includes numerous amendments to the plan. None of this occurred in this case. Coventry, however, soldiered on, in good faith, and, after several hearings, the zoning board issued an approval in accordance with the town's zoning and subdivision regulations. Although we are satisfied that the act in effect at the time of Omni's application did not exclude subdivision plans for low and moderate housing, we recognize the difficulty encountered by members of a zoning board who are unfamiliar with subdivision regulations and requirements, yet cognizant that a significant amount of the land in a subdivision eventually will be deeded to the municipality to hold in perpetuity, and that its citizens will reside in this development for many years. In recognition that a subdivision development requires further municipal involvement after final approval, SHAB requested, and the parties apparently agreed, to develop a protocol for resolving issues that may arise during the construction process. [9] In conclusion, although we are mindful of the myriad of problems that expedited review of major subdivision projects can present, we are not persuaded that this type of development was excluded by the act in effect at the time of these hearings.