29 Sylvan, LLC v. Town of Narragansett
| Decision Date | 13 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. WC-2020-0112 |
| Parties | 29 SYLVAN, LLC; and 33 SYLVAN, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. THE TOWN OF NARRAGANSETT, CHRISTINE SPAGNOLI, in her capacity as Narragansett Finance Director, ANTHONY L. SANTILLI, JR., in his official capacity as the Narragansett Building Official, Defendants. |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
DECISION
Before this Court is a motion for injunctive relief by the Plaintiffs, 29 Sylvan, LLC and 33 Sylvan, LLC (collectively Plaintiffs). The Defendants—the Town of Narragansett (the Town), Christine Spagnoli, in her capacity as Narragansett Finance Director, and Anthony L. Santilli, Jr., in his official capacity as the Narragansett Building Official (collectively Defendants)—object to Plaintiffs' motion. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 §§ 8-2-13, 8-2-14, and 9-30-1, as well as Rule 65 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs are the owners of abutting parcels of property located at 29 and 33 Sylvan Road, Narragansett, Rhode Island, identified respectively as Lots 29 and 30 on Plat S (collectively the Property). (Verified Compl. ¶¶ 1-2.) Both parcels are located in an R-10 zone. Id. ¶¶ 14, 22. The parcels were purchased for the purpose of demolishing and rebuilding a single-family residence at 29 Sylvan Road, and for significantly remodeling an existing single-family residence at 33 Sylvan Road. Id. ¶¶ 13, 24. The proposed development plan for the Property, located in the Eastward Look neighborhood of Narragansett, involves the creation on each parcel of an eight-bedroom single-family residence. Id. ¶¶ 13, 21. Plaintiffs have alleged that they each have "a high-interest construction loan for construction of their planned single-family homes." Id. ¶ 11.
Plaintiffs submitted their applications for building permits to the Town of Narragansett in September and December 2019, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 13, 21. The construction of a single-family detached dwelling is permitted in an R-10 zone. Id. ¶¶ 15, 23. As part of the application, the Town required 29 Sylvan, LLC to obtain a building permit as well as a demolition permit to complete the project. Id. ¶ 16. According to Plaintiffs, the Town acknowledged that the application for the demolition permit was complete, but, due to the passage of the emergency ordinance at issue in this case, the Town did not initially issue that permit to Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 17.
On January 6, 2020, a group of citizens voiced their concerns about the proposed projects to the Town Council at a meeting. Id. ¶¶ 30-35. Following the meeting, Captain Kevin R. Tuthill of the Narragansett Fire Department sent a letter to Chief Scott M. Partington of the Narragansett Fire Department regarding the rental of large single-family houses in the Town. Id. ¶ 26. The letter stated Captain Tuthill's opinion that residences with six or more bedrooms being rented should have their classification changed for fire code purposes. Id. On January 13, 2020, Town Council member Richard Lema introduced a resolution to adopt an emergency ordinance providing for a moratorium on building and development. Id. ¶ 36, Ex. C. The Town Clerk, on January 16, 2020, published an Agenda concerning the Motion to Adopt "An Emergency Ordinance of the Town of Narragansett Providing for a Moratorium on Building and Development, Under the Provisions ofSection 2-1-9(b) of the Town Charter" (Emergency Ordinance). Id. ¶ 37, Ex. D. No other public notice was made regarding the Emergency Ordinance.
On January 21, 2020, the Town Council considered and passed the Emergency Ordinance. Id. ¶ 42, Ex. C. The Emergency Ordinance listed a number of findings, including the following: "residential areas of the town are under threat of excessive impact as a result of the construction of single-family homes with six or more bedrooms with the sole purpose of renting these residences for profit"; "[t]here is continued intent to construct large residences, identified as single-family dwellings, with six or more bedrooms for the purpose of operating commercial enterprises"; and "[t]hese additional bedrooms are being rented for periods as brief as one night, and as long as one year." Id. at Ex. C (Emergency Ordinance, Findings B, D, E). The Emergency Ordinance therefore mandated that:
"For the period of sixty (60) days following the passage of this ordinance, all Town agencies and all Town employees shall neither accept, process, approve, deny or in any way act upon any new or incomplete application, plan, permit, license and/or fee for any new construction or use governed by this emergency ordinance for said period of time." Id. § 4.
Following the enactment of the Emergency Ordinance, Plaintiffs received correspondence from the Town that their plans could not move forward because of the Emergency Ordinance. (Verified Compl. ¶ 18.)
Ten days after the enactment of the Emergency Ordinance, on January 31, 2020, in another proceeding before this Court, the Town entered into a Consent Order concerning its enforcement of the Emergency Ordinance going forward. Hayes v. Town of Narragansett, C.A. No. WC-2020-0047, Jan. 31, 2020.1 The Town agreed by virtue of the Consent Order that it would not enforcethe Emergency Ordinance pertaining to restriction of the issuance of building permits in areas zoned R-40 or R-80. Id. at Ex. E. Further, the Town agreed not to enforce the Emergency Ordinance regarding the issuance of building permits for new structures that have four or fewer bedrooms or for existing structures to expand to a maximum of four bedrooms. Id.
On March 2, 2020, the Town voted to send to the Planning Board proposed changes to the Town's zoning ordinances for review, recommendation, and public hearing (the Bulk Zoning Amendments). (Pls.' Mem. at 4.) The Bulk Zoning Amendments would limit the size of residences based on a concept known as "floor-area ratio," which bases the maximum size of the residence on the size of the lot on which it sits. See Defs.' Suppl. Mem. Supp. Obj. Pls.' Mot. for Injunctive Relief Ex. 7, Bulk Zoning Amendments, changes to § 6.4. The Town Planning Board began considering the Bulk Zoning Amendments on March 9, 2020. (Defs.' Suppl. Mem. at 8-9.) Despite Governor Raimondo issuing an Executive Order on March 16, 2020, exempting only "essential functions" of governmental bodies from the normal requirements of the Open Meetings Act through Rhode Island Executive Order No. 20-05, the Planning Board recommended passage of the Bulk Zoning Amendments on March 23, 2020, subject to furtherreview by the Town engineer. See Pls.' Mem. Further Supp. Mot. Injunctive Relief at 5; Defs.' Suppl. Mem. at 9.
In the meantime, Plaintiffs had filed a seven-count Verified Complaint in this case on March 4, 2020, alleging that the Town violated their rights to equal protection, substantive due process, and procedural due process under the Rhode Island Constitution, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs ask for a declaration (1) that the moratorium is void as a matter of law because the Town did not have the authority to impose the moratorium under G.L. 1956 § 45-22.2-13(e); (2) that the Town failed to provide the plaintiffs proper notice pursuant to § 45-22.2-13(e); (3) that the Town did not have an "emergency" as required under the emergency ordinance procedure under the Town charter; and (4) that the Town does not have authority to pass ordinances on the subject matter covered in the Emergency Ordinance.
On March 5, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive relief and a memorandum in support thereof. Defendants filed an objection and a supporting memorandum. The parties appeared at a hearing before this Court on March 26, 2020 via WebEx. Following the hearing, this Court issued a temporary restraining order which prohibited the Town from holding further hearings on the Bulk Zoning Amendments and which instructed the parties to maintain the status quo until further hearings could be held before this Court. See Order (June 11, 2020) (Taft-Carter, J.).
In the interim, the Town's Engineering Department sent correspondence to Plaintiffs on March 17, 2020, providing information, for the first time, regarding the Town's comprehensive analysis of the 33 Sylvan's Building Permit Application. See Pls.' Mem. at 5. At the end of the sixty-day period set forth in the Emergency Ordinance on March 20, 2020, the Town Council held a special meeting at which it voted to extend the moratorium. Id. at 6, Exs. H and I. After Plaintiffsprovided clarification on matters regarding their building permit applications, such as a previously withdrawn request for an administrative subdivision, the Town sent further correspondence on May 5, 2020, indicating to Plaintiffs some items that the Town considered outstanding from their applications. Id. at 7, Exs. L and M. That is, the Town worked with Plaintiffs to move the applications forward, despite the existence of the Emergency Ordinance. Defs.' Suppl. Mem., Ex. 2 at 88-89. Defendant Santilli admitted at his deposition that he had "receive[d] direction to continue the review" of Plaintiffs' applications, despite the building moratorium mandate contained in the Emergency Ordinance. Id.
On August 12, 2020, a hearing was held by this Court via WebEx to consider Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of the Emergency Ordinance and requiring the Town to process and/or issue Plaintiffs' building permits. (Pls.' Mem. at 26.) Prior to the hearing, the parties filed supplemental memoranda in support of their respective positions. The Court will now render its decision.
Rule 65 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides the Court the ability to grant temporary injunctive relief, and the decision to grant or deny injunctive relief is left to the sound discretion of the trial justice. Hagenberg v. Avedisian, 879 A.2d 436, 441 (R.I...
To continue reading
Request your trial