Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2016 I Volume 10 ( Issue 8 WL 984044 (R.I. 2016) RHODE ISLAND (03/15/16) This case addressed the issues of whether a zoning board is an "agency" and a zoning board hearing on a variance is an "adjudicatory proceeding" under the state's Equal Access to Justice for Small Business and Individuals Act, thus allowing a homeowner to, under the Act, seek litigation expenses related to appeal of a zoning board decision provided that other prerequisites for relief are met. The Background/Facts: Henry and Mary Tarbox (the "Tarboxes") owned a single-family home in Jamestown, Rhode Island (the "Town"). In September 2010, they sought to construct an addition to their home. The addition would convert their single-family home into a duplex —a permit- ted use in their zoning district. However, because of the size of the Tarboxes' lot, they needed a dimensional variance for the addition. The Tarboxes applied to the Town's Zoning Board of Review (the "Board") for a variance. Ultimately, the Board denied the Tarboxes' variance. The Tarboxes ap- pealed to the Superior Court. The court reversed and granted the Tarboxes' variance application. The Tarboxes then filed a motion for an award of reasonable litigation expenses under Rhode Island statutory law —the Equal Access to Justice for Small Business and Individuals Act (the "Act"). The Act was "designed to address government abuse and agency deci- sions made without substantial justification," and "to that end, [it] "encour- age[s] individuals and small businesses to contest unjust actions by the state and/or municipal agencies" by allowing an award of reasonable litiga- tion expenses from state or municipal agencies in appropriate circumstances. (Rhode Island Gen. L. § 42-92-1 to 42-92-3.) The Act provides that a prevailing "[p]arty" (2-92-2(5)) may be awarded "[r]eason- able litigation expenses" (2-92-2(6)) where the "[a]gency" (2-92-2(3)) was without "[s]ubstantial justification" (2-92-2(7)) in actions that led to an "[a]djudicatory proceeding[ ]" (2-92-2(2)) or taken in the proceeding itself. (See § 42-92-3.) A Superior Court Justice denied the Tarboxes' motion. The justice deteiiiiined that the Board was not an "agency" under the Act and that the hearing before the Board was not an "adjudicatory proceeding" as defined under the Act. The justice entered final judgment vacating the Board's de- cision, granting the Tarboxes' variance application, and denying the Tarboxes' motion for reasonable litigation expenses under the Act. The Tarboxes appealed. On appeal, they argued that the trial justice misinterpreted the Act. DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court quashed, and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island agreed with the Tarboxes. The court concluded that the Board was an "agency" and the hearing on the Tarboxes' variance application was an "adjudicatory proceeding" under the Act, such ©2016 Thomson Reuters 3