Salisbury v. Town of Exeter, C.A. No. WC03-0226 (R.I. Super 5/29/2009), C.A. No. WC03-0226.
| Decision Date | 29 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. WC03-0226. |
| Parties | PHILLIP SALISBURY v. TOWN OF EXETER and EXETER PLANNING COMMISSION |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
Before this Court is the motion of Defendants Town of Exeter ("the Town") and the Exeter Planning Commission ("the Commission") for summary judgment against Plaintiff Phillip Salisbury ("Salisbury"). Defendants argue that the present action, in which Salisbury seeks a declaratory judgment that he is legally entitled to use a certain parcel of property for ingress and egress, is barred by collateral estoppel, res judicata, and administrative finality. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 9-30-1.
This case has a truly tortuous (and, as counsel have suggested, torturous) procedural history which requires careful explication. Central to the case is certain real property owned by Salisbury, located at 159 Purgatory Road in Exeter, Rhode Island, and identified as Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 28 on Assessor's Plat 37.1 Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 are "landlocked," meaning that they lack frontage on an approved town or state road. Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 are also contiguous. Lot 11 is adjacent to Lot 9, and includes approximately 300 feet of frontage on Purgatory Road. Lot 28, which is the focus of this action connects Lot 8 to Locust Valley Road; its bounds are approximately forty feet by twenty feet.
On March 18, 1992, Salisbury filed an application for zoning certificates and a variance for Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, seeking relief from the frontage requirement of the Ordinance in order to build a house on said lots (the "1992 Application"). On May 11, 1992, the Town of Exeter Zoning Board of Review (the "Board") held a hearing on Salisbury's application, but Salisbury failed to appear. On June 9, 1992, the Board issued a decision denying the 1992 Application due to Salisbury's failure to appear for the hearing. Salisbury did not appeal the Board's decision.
In November 1995, Salisbury again applied for zoning certificates for Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 (the "1995 Application"). The Zoning Inspector (the "Inspector") denied the 1995 Application on the ground that each Lot lacked frontage and, therefore, required a dimensional variance. Salisbury did not appeal the Inspector's decision at that time.
On January 16, 1996, Salisbury brought a declaratory judgment action in this Court (the "1996 Action"). The complaint alleged that Salisbury was entitled to zoning certificates as a matter of right because Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 are non-conforming lots of record which existed prior to the Town's enactment of the Ordinance in 1977.2 Defendants responded to the complaint by moving to dismiss the action.
On March 18, 1996, following a hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss, this Court remanded the matter to the Board to determine whether the Board had jurisdiction over the Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9,3 and to review the Inspector's denial of the zoning certificates. On October 3, 1996, following a series of hearings, the Board issued a decision providing that it did have jurisdiction over the lots and upholding the Inspector's decision. The Board so held on the ground that Lot 28 was an illegal lot and that Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 had merged with Lot 11 by operation of law. The Board concluded that as a result of this merger, Salisbury's lots were no longer non-conforming lots exempt from the zoning ordinance, but instead comprised one conforming lot that was subject to the Board's jurisdiction.
Thereafter, Salisbury amended his complaint to add two claims: count two requested a writ of mandamus compelling the Zoning Inspector to issue the requested certificates, and count three appealed the Board's decision. On August 19, 1998, this Court issued a decision (the "1998 Decision") dismissing Salisbury's action in its entirety on the following grounds: first, that he was not entitled to a declaratory judgment because the claim was a de facto zoning appeal which would only have been appropriate if Salisbury had challenged the construction or operation of the Ordinance, which he did not; second, that he was not entitled to a writ of mandamus because the Inspector's action was discretionary and because Salisbury had an adequate remedy at law in the form of a direct appeal from the Board's decision; and third, that his application before the Inspector and subsequent appeal were barred by the doctrine of administrative finality. Finally, the Court noted that even if it had reached the merits of Salisbury's appeal, it would have denied him any relief.
In January 2002, Mark Allaire4 ("Allaire") filed with the Planning Board a preapplication to subdivide Salisbury's merged Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 into a two-lot residential compound, with Salisbury signing on to the application as the property owner. In March 2002, Allaire filed an Application for Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plan Approval (the "2002 Application"), and again Salisbury signed on to the application as property owner. Following a hearing, Allaire filed a letter requesting permission to withdraw his application without prejudice. The Planning Board voted "to accept the letter" and to dismiss the application with prejudice. Salisbury did not appeal the Planning Board's decision.
In 2003, Salisbury filed this action, seeking a declaratory judgment that he has good title to Lot 28 and that he is entitled to use Lot 28 as a right-of-way for access to Lot 8. On August 12, 2004, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Lot 28 was an illegal lot based on the undisputed facts and, therefore, that they were entitled to summary judgment. Following a hearing on September 20, 2004, this Court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court noted that the effect of the transfer of Lot 28 had been simply to move the lot lines of Lot 8, and that the transfer therefore had not created an illegal subdivision.5
On March 15, 2006, Salisbury filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the undisputed facts revealed that the transfer of Lot 28 had resulted in the moving of lot lines rather than an illegal subdivision. Following a hearing on June 19, 2006, this Court denied Salisbury's motion for summary judgment. Without particular elucidation, the motion justice suggested contrary to the Court's earlier ruling that the effect of transferring Lot 28 to Salisbury had been to create an illegal subdivision. The motion justice then acknowledged that this suggestion was inconsistent with the Court's prior holding and stated: (Tr. Jun. 19, 2006 at 18.)
On December 3, 2007, Defendants again moved for summary judgment, arguing now that the present action is barred by collateral estoppel, res judicata, and administrative finality. Salisbury has objected to Defendants' motion on the ground that the present action raises issues that have not been adjudicated in any prior proceeding.
On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the initial burden of (1) bringing forth admissible evidence to suggest that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and (2) establishing that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Olshansky v. Rehrig Intern., 872 A.2d 282, 286 (R.I. 2005). To survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party need only bring forth admissible evidence to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of fact material to the legal issues of the case. Id. The hearing justice must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and may neither weigh the evidence nor otherwise attempt to resolve factual disputes. See Palmisciano v. Burrillville Racing Ass'n, 603 A.2d 317, 320 (R.I. 1992).
This standard reflects the policy that summary judgment is "a drastic remedy" that "should be dealt with cautiously." Estate of Giuliano v. Giuliano, 949 A.2d 386, 390 (R.I. 2008). Overall, the court should only grant a motion for summary judgment where there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Olshansky, 872 A.2d at 286.
First, Defendants argue that Salisbury's action is barred by the doctrine of administrative finality as a matter of law, because Salisbury presently seeks relief that is substantially similar to relief he has sought in each of the prior administrative proceedings outlined above. Salisbury disputes Defendants' contention that administrative finality applies here.
"Under [the doctrine of administrative finality], when an administrative agency receives an application for relief and denies it, a subsequent application for the same relief may not be granted absent a showing of a change in material circumstances during the time between the two applications." Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Associates, Ltd. v. Nolan, 755 A.2d 799, 808 (R.I. 2000) (citing Audette v. Coletti, 539 A.2d 520, 521-22 (R.I. 1988)). "This rule applies as long as the outcome sought in each application is substantially similar, . . . even if the two applications each rely on different legal theories." Id. (citing Costa v. Gagnon, 455 A.2d 310, 313 (R.I. 1983), May-Day Realty Corp. v. Board of Appeals of Pawtucket, 107 R.I. 235, 237, 267 A.2d 400, 401-02 (1970)). Conversely, if the outcome sought in each application is not substantially similar, or if there is a material change in circumstances between applications, the doctrine of administrative finality will not apply. See id.
The doctrine of administrative finality does not apply here because Salisbury seeks a declaratory judgment rather than review of any administrative determination. Defendants have pointed to no precedent, and the Court can find none, to support their argument that the doctrine of administrative finality may apply...
To continue reading
Request your trial