Champlin's Realty Associates v. Tikoian

Decision Date18 February 2010
Docket NumberNo. 2009-113-M.P.,No. 2009-115-M.P.,No. 2009-114-M.P.,2009-113-M.P.,2009-114-M.P.,2009-115-M.P.
Citation989 A.2d 427
PartiesCHAMPLIN'S REALTY ASSOCIATES v. Michael TIKOIAN et al. Town of New Shoreham v. Coastal Resources Management Council.
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court

Present: SUTTELL, C.J., FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, JJ., and WILLIAMS, C.J. (ret.).

OPINION

Justice FLAHERTY, for the Court.

Block Island sits approximately twelve miles off the coast of Rhode Island. Sometimes referred to as the "Bermuda of the North," it is a place of spectacular beauty. For generations, vacationers have flocked to the island during the short summer months to relax and enjoy the beaches and unspoiled vistas that nature has provided. Although the island is home to a small airport, the vast majority of visitors arrive by boat — including regular ferry service and private vessels. As is the case in many coastal communities, dock and mooring space can be at a premium.

Champlin's Realty Associates (Champlin's) operates a large marina on Block Island serving the needs of boaters and their craft. Concerned that it lacked the space to meet its business demands, Champlin's filed an application to expand its operation to a substantial degree. The dispute over that proposed expansion, involving Champlin's, the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC or council), the Town of New Shoreham1 (town), and a number of intervening environmental groups, has finally wended its way to this Court. After carefully reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court in part, reverse in part, and remand to the Superior Court with instructions that it remand this matter to the CRMC for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I Factual Background

The CRMC is a state agency charged with protecting and regulating Rhode Island's coastal resources. General Laws 1956 § 46-23-1(b)(l). Champlin's Realty Associates, a Rhode Island corporation, filed an application with the CRMC to extend its existing marina 240 feet into the Great Salt Pond in the Town of New Shoreham to accommodate 140 additional boats. The proposed expansion included 2,990 feet of fixed pier and an additional 755 feet of floating docks. Under the proposal, the additional dockage would extend from the existing marina. The CRMC has the statutory authority to grant applications for such expansions of existing marinas. Section 46-23-6(4)(iii).

The Town of New Shoreham and intervenors, the Block Island Land Trust, the Conservation Law Foundation, the Committee for the Great Salt Pond, and the Block Island Conservancy, opposed the application. When the CRMC receives a written objection to an application, the proceeding then becomes "contested" under the CRMC Management Procedures. The CRMC Management Procedures further provide that such contested cases be the subject of a public hearing before a "duly authorized and appointed Subcommittee."2 Pursuant to his authority and in accordance with the relevant CRMC Management Procedures, the CRMC chairman Michael Tikoian appointed a subcommittee composed of five members: Jerry Sahagian, Thomas Ricci, Gerald P. Zarrella, and Paul E. Lemont as chairman.3

A Subcommittee Hearings

The subcommittee held twenty-three public hearings over the course of two years from the time of Champlin's application in 2003 until its final hearing on September 16, 2005. Extensive testimony and voluminous exhibits were received during the hearings, which reportedly were the longest and most exhaustive in CRMC history. The protracted hearings were rancorous and hotly disputed, not only among the parties but also among the subcommittee members. Subsequently, the four subcommittee members eligible to vote held a public workshop on October 24, 2005, to make findings of fact based on the evidence that had been presented to them, and to decide upon the recommendation that the subcommittee would make to the full CRMC. Subcommittee member Ricci commented during the public workshop that "clearly, this is an emotional, very difficult issue." Subcommittee member Zarrella asserted at the public workshop: "I wish Mike Tikoian never put me on this committee, 23 meetings. * * * I don't want to be here." It was clear that tension arose in this case because of a conflict involving the implications of the marina expansion into the environmentally sensitive Great Salt Pond and the reality that dockage for watercraft is necessary for the general public to have access to the island.

As chairman of the subcommittee, Lemont addressed those present at the workshop and praised "both sides" for their "outstanding presentation." He noted that after looking at the evidence, "there is no right and there is no wrong. * * * We're looking at what is the best fitted decision that will impact all of the concerns raised." Lemont expressed his conclusion that "[t]here has to be compromise," and he supported neither the grant of the full application nor its outright denial. He was not alone; during the public workshop, all four members of the subcommittee voiced their opinions against the full requested expansion in the application, and three members, Chairman Lemont excluded, indicated that they would support a middle ground of an expansion of 170 feet.

Lemont stated at the public workshop that he would "not support anything more than 100 feet." Sahagian expressed his wish that "the Town or the objectors did try to compromise a little bit more." He went on to say that "what I am thinking right now is the Town at one point was at 100 feet, the applicant was at 240. [One-hundred and seventy feet] is in the middle." Ricci commented, "I am not in favor of approving the application as it's stated, for 240 feet. But, I also agree with my fellow subcommittee members, that I'm not in favor of denying the application outright." He concluded that "[t]he applicant seeks 240 feet. They're not going to get my recommendation for that or my vote for that." Zarrella remarked that he "wished [the town] left that plan in there for 100 feet. It would have been a lot * * * easier if [they] left the plan there, but when they took it out at the public meeting, it's been difficult for me." He went on to say, "I can't say no expansion. I can't say it. The evidence is not there. The evidence is there for expansion. And, I can't say 240 feet." Further, Zarrella concluded that "I'm on the page that the Chairman is, of a compromise, but I think [that] I'm on a page that I'm a little bit more — I want to give a little bit more." He lamented, "[the] Town's hands are tied. The plans for 100 feet came in too late. As far as I was concerned, it should have come in earlier and I think you guys could have negotiated it out a long time ago."

On January 10, 2006, the subcommittee made forty-seven findings of fact and issued a recommendation with the three votes in favor of a scaled-down modification of the proposal to 170 feet, rather than 240 feet, and one vote, Lemont, against.

B Full Council Hearing

On February 28, 2006, the CRMC met in accordance with § 46-23-20.4(a) and the CRMC Management Procedures 5.3(2) and 5.3(3) to consider the record, evidence, and the subcommittee's recommendation, as well as Champlin's argument that the CRMC should adopt the recommendation. The CRMC is vested with the authority, in its discretion, to adopt, modify or reject the subcommittee recommendation, findings of fact, and conclusions of law if the rationale for doing so is provided in writing. Section 46-23-20.4(a). However, before it could take up the subcommittee recommendation, the CRMC first addressed Champlin's previously filed motions to disqualify both Tikoian and member David Abedon from participating on the basis of public statements made by them after the vote of the subcommittee. After denying those motions, the CRMC proceeded to consider the subcommittee's recommendation. The transcript reveals that the meeting, like the subcommittee proceedings that preceded it, was rife with tension.

Ultimately, five members of the full council, including Zarrella, voted to approve the subcommittee's recommendation, while five members, including Lemont and Tikoian, voted against adoption. The resulting tie vote constituted a rejection of the recommendation. On July 5, 2006, the CRMC issued its written decision denying Champlin's application. That same day, the five members who voted in favor of adopting the subcommittee's recommendation released "Findings of Fact of the CRMC Members in Support of the Subcommittee Recommendation."

II Procedural Background
A Administrative Appeal

In the midst of an atmosphere of hostility and tension, an appeal to the Superior Court ensued. The Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from administrative agencies such as the CRMC under the Rhode Island Administrative Procedures Act, G.L.1956 § 42-35-15. On March 23, 2006, Champlin's filed a complaint in the Superior Court, in which it sought judicial review of the CRMC's decision rejecting its application.4 In count 1 of its complaint, Champlin's asserted that when the CRMC rejected the subcommittee recommendation and denied its application for expansion the agency (1) affected Champlin's substantial rights in violation of constitutional or statutory procedure; (2) acted in excess of its statutory authority; (3) made use of unlawful procedure; (4) made a decision that was affected by other error of law, and was arbitrary capricious, and characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. In count 2, Champlin's alleged that the refusal to disqualify Tikoian and Abedon violated Champlin's right to procedural and substantive due process under the Constitution and laws of Rhode Island, the Constitution of the United States, and the CRMC management practices. In count 3,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
215 cases
  • Felkner v. R.I. Coll.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • March 18, 2019
  • Providence v. Jeremiah
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Superior Court
    • October 8, 2010
    ...Court noted that this was similar to the regulations followed by many federal agencies. Id. at 821. See also Champlin's Realty Associates v. Tikoian, 989 A.2d 427 (2010), where the Rhode Island Supreme Court analyzed a host of various ex-parte communications occurring in the context of an a......
  • Carvalho v. Town of Lincoln
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Superior Court
    • January 23, 2013
    ...function, it must act impartially and refrain from prejudging the matter before it. See Champlin's Realty Assocs. v. Tikonian, 989 A.2d 427, 443 (R.I. 2010). In general, agency decisionmakers "enjoy a 'presumption of honesty and integrity.'" Id (quoting Davis v. Wood, 444 A.2d 190, 192 (R.I......
  • Carvalho v. Town of Lincoln
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Superior Court
    • January 23, 2013
    ...function, it must act impartially and refrain from prejudging the matter before it. See Champlin's Realty Assocs. v. Tikonian, 989 A.2d 427, 443 (R.I. 2010). In general, agency decisionmakers "enjoy a 'presumption of honesty and integrity.'" Id (quoting Davis v. Wood, 444 A.2d 190, 192 (R.I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT