Quidnessett Country Club, Inc. v. Board of Assessment Review of the Town of North Kingstown and its Members, C.A. No. W.C. 04-0296 (R.I. Super 9/8/2008)

• Decision Date: 08 September 2008
• Docket Number: C.A. No. W.C. 04-0296.
• Parties: QUIDNESSETT COUNTRY CLUB, INC. v. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN AND ITS MEMBERS: Linda Cwiek, Francis Dwyer, Curtis V. Givan, and James Neary, Jr. in their official capacities as members of the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of North Kingstown
• Court: Rhode Island Superior Court

Page 1

QUIDNESSETT COUNTRY CLUB, INC. v. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN AND ITS MEMBERS: Linda Cwiek, Francis Dwyer, Curtis V. Givan, and James Neary, Jr. in their official capacities as members of the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of North Kingstown

C.A. No. W.C. 04-0296.

Superior Court of Rhode Island.

Washington, Sc.

Filed: September 8, 2008.

DECISION

THOMPSON, J.

Before this Court is an appeal by Quidnessett Country Club, Inc. of a decision by the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of North Kingstown. The Board of Assessment Review's decision, issued February 18, 2004, affirmed a decision by the North Kingstown Tax Assessor denying Quidnessett Country Club, Inc.'s application to classify its property as "open space land" for tax purposes pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 44-27-5. Jurisdiction is pursuant to § 44-27-6(a).

I Facts and Travel

Quidnessett Country Club, Inc. (Quidnessett), a Rhode Island corporation, is the owner of three contiguous lots in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, totaling 184.67 acres. The lots are designated as Lot 3 on Tax Assessor's Plat 32; Lot 528 on Tax Assessor's Plat 166; and Lot 2 on Tax Assessor's Plat 167. The three lots (the "property") consist mainly of land used as a golf course. (Tr. dated April 12, 2007 at 9-10). However, wooded areas and wetlands dot parts of the property. Id. at 8-9. Additionally, a clubhouse and other country club facilities, as well as some residential townhouses, are located on the property. Id.

The Town of North Kingstown (the "Town") is the holder of two easements on Quidnessett's property. Quidnessett granted the first of these easements on July 29, 1999, as part of a plan approved by the North Kingstown Planning Commission to permit Quidnesset to construct residential townhouse units on the property. (Grant of easement, dated July 29, 1999.) Among other provisions, the easement, which titles itself an "open space easement and covenant," prohibits most future development on 166 acres of Quidnessett's property, and it limits uses of the property to recreational, agricultural, and conservation uses.¹ Id. However, the easement terms also permit roadways on the easement area to provide access to the golf course, and some small structures may be built within the easement area with approval from the North Kingstown Planning Commission. Id.

On September 6, 2001, Quidnessett granted a second easement to the Town on 18.67 acres of its property in exchange for permission to construct more townhouses. The terms of the second easement were equivalent to those of the prior easement. (Grant of easement, dated September 6, 2001.) Thus, easements now extend to all 184.67 acres of the three lots at issue.

On or about January 17, 2003, Quidnessett applied to the North Kingstown Tax Assessor to classify its property as "open space land." See § 44-27-5(a)(1) (requiring property owners to apply to local tax assessor for designation of property "open space land"); see also § 44-27-2(3) (defining "open space land"). Property taxes in Rhode Island are assessed based on a property's "full and fair cash value." Section 44-5-12(a). However, for property "classified as farm land, forest, or open space land" under chapter 27 of title 44, tax assessors determining full and fair cash value are permitted to "consider no factors . . . other than those which relate to that [farm land, forest, or open space land] use without regard to neighboring land use of a more intensive nature." Section 44-5-12(a)(2). Essentially, § 44-5-12(a)(2) requires that property classified as farm land, forest, or open space land be valued, for tax purposes, based on the property's actual use, rather than based on its potential value as developable land—potentially at great savings to the property owner. See Nunes v. Marino, 707 A.2d 1239, 1240 (R.I. 1998) (classification as "farmland" grants landowner "benefit of reduced property tax liability").

On or about August 8, 2003, North Kingstown's Tax Assessor denied Quidnessett's application to classify its property as "open space land." Aggrieved landowners may appeal such denials to a local board of assessment review. See § 44-27-5(d);² see also § 45-27-12(3) (granting boards the authority to hear appeals of classification decisions by local tax assessors). Quidnessett filed an appeal with the Board of Assessment Review (Board) on or about August 19, 2003.

The Board held a hearing on the appeal on January 13, 2004, at which it requested additional information from Quidnessett regarding the use of its property. (Minutes of Board meeting, dated Feb. 17, 2004). On February 17, 2004, after learning more about the property, the Board voted unanimously to deny the appeal. Id. In a letter to Quidnessett issued on February 18 2004, the Board informed Quidnessett of the denial, stating simply: "Based upon the information available to us, it is our opinion that the assessment and classification of the property is correct, and we are unable to change the present assessment." (Letter by Board of Assessment Review, dated Feb. 18, 2004.)

Quidnessett filed an appeal to this Court on May 11, 2004. See § 44-27-6(a) (permitting appeal of decisions by board of assessment review to the Superior Court within 90 days). On June 8, 2004, the parties stipulated to an agreement remanding the matter to the Board in order to permit the Board to receive testimony from various state and local boards and agencies, as is contemplated by § 44-27-5(d).³ (Stipulation, dated June 8, 2004); see also § 44-27-6(b) (providing that trial justice may order a board of assessment review to receive additional evidence and that board may thereafter modify decision).⁴

In the ensuing months, the Board received letters from officials from the North Kingstown Planning Commission; the North Kingstown Conservation Commission; the Statewide Planning Program, an office within the state's Department of Administration; and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Additionally, the Board received a letter from Jeffrey Seeman, Dean of the College of the Environment and Life Sciences at The University of Rhode Island. None of these officials recommended designating Quidnessett's property as "open space land" based on their understanding of the characteristics of Quidnessett's property and the statutory requirements for the designation. However, the possibility that certain tracts of Quidnessett's property could qualify was raised in the letters from the officials at the Department of Environmental Management and the Statewide Planning Program.

After a hearing on October 27, 2004, the Board decided not to reverse its prior decision. The matter was returned to this Court, and, in July 2005, the parties submitted legal memoranda. On October 24, 2005, this Court granted a motion by Quidnessett to remand the matter to the Board once again, so that Quidnessett could present additional evidence regarding the ecological benefits of golf courses. (Order, dated Oct. 24, 2005; Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Present Additional Evidence.)

On April 12, 2007, the Board held a final hearing on the matter. Scott W. Rabideau, a wetlands biologist testifying as an expert for Quidnessett, estimated that of the 201 acres he surveyed—a figure apparently including land beyond the 184.67 acres at issue—approximately 121 acres are used as a golf course. (Tr. at 8-10). Another 21.5 acres consist of country club facilities, townhouses, and similar development, while nearly 60 acres are wetlands and woodlands. Id. at 9-10. Rabideau further found that Quidnessett's property provides valuable habitat for geese, owls, foxes, coyotes, and other wildlife. Id. at 11-12. However, Linda A. Steere, a wildlife biologist who studied the property on behalf of the Town of North Kingstown, characterized the property as providing habitat not particularly different from habitat necessary to support urban wildlife, noting "you are not going to find a large diversity of wildlife there that need natural habitats." Id. at 14-18.

Following the April 12, 2007 hearing, the Board did not reverse its decision, and the matter has returned to this Court. The parties having filed supplemental legal memoranda, and with no further requests to enter additional evidence into the record, this Court now proceeds to decision.

II Standard of Review

The Superior Court's review of decisions by a board of assessment review is governed by § 44-27-6(c), which states:

"The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the board of assessment review, or city or town council, as to the weight of the evidence on question of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the board of assessment review, or city or town council, or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions which are:

(1) In violation of constitutional, statutory, or ordinance provisions;

(2) In excess of the authority granted to the board of assessment review, or city or town council, by statute or ordinance;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." Section 44-27-6(c)

This standard of review is analogous to the standard applied by this Court in reviewing administrative agency decisions. See Munroe v. Town of E. Greenwich, 733 A.2d 703, 705 (R.I. 1999) (noting that standard of review for planning board of appeal decisions is the same as the "traditional judicial review standard that is applied in administrative-agency actions"). As such, "the Superior Court does not consider the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, or make its own...