Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />erroneous or unauthorized. SHAB had defined "substantial" to mean <br />"material," "important," and "essentia1." It had defined "complete" <br />to mean "having all parts or elements." The court concluded that these <br />definitions fit with the legislative intent of the moratorium and therefore <br />were not erroneous or unauthorized. <br />However, the court further concluded that SHAB acted in an arbi- <br />trary and capricious manner in deciding the substantial completeness <br />of the Developers' applications because it misapplied its own definition. <br />It found that the SHAB instead focused on sufficiency and whether the <br />town had enough information to "get started." <br />Finally, the court agreed with the town that the SHAB'~ finding of <br />substantial completeness for each of the Developers' applications was <br />not supported by the evidence. Each failed to achieve at least one of the <br />ten factors in the substantial completeness test. <br />Accordingly, the court concluded that the Developers' applications <br />were subject to the moratorium. <br /> <br />See also: T~wn of Smithfield v. Chur~hill & Banks Companies, LLC, 924 <br />A.2d 796 (R.I. 2007). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court's decision. explained how moratorium stan- <br />dards were to be applied. In doing so, it repeatedly emphasized that <br />the SHAB's application of the standards must achieve the purpose <br />of the moratorium. That purpose, the court found, was tQ "cull out <br />eleventh-hour applications that were completed and filed hastily to <br />avoid the well-publicized impending moratorium... ." . <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest <br /> <br />106 <br /> <br />1 <br />J <br />i <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />j <br />I- <br />I <br />I <br />