Bellevue-Ochre Point Neighborhood Association v. Preservation Society of Newport County
151 A.3d 1223
| R.I. | 2017Background
- The Preservation Society of Newport County sought to build a ~3,650 sq ft Welcome Center at the Breakers museum; HDC denied a certificate of appropriateness, and the Zoning Board reversed and approved compliance with historic zoning.
- Bellevue-Ochre Point Neighborhood Association (BOPNA) filed a UDJA declaratory-judgment action in Superior Court asking the court to rule that the Welcome Center was prohibited (claims: unlawful change/movement of a nonconforming use; impermissible restaurant use; impermissible accessory use).
- The Society moved to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(1),(6)) arguing the claims were not ripe, the zoning board had authority to interpret the ordinance, and BOPNA lacked standing; the Superior Court granted the motion, finding the issues were for local zoning officials and BOPNA had not exhausted administrative remedies.
- While the appeal was pending, the Zoning Board granted the Society a modification of its 1997 special use permit and expressly rejected many of BOPNA’s contentions (no restaurant, no visibility, limited refreshment sales, not a preexisting illegal nonconforming use).
- The Supreme Court converted the dismissal to a summary-judgment review, affirmed the Superior Court, held the zoning board had authority to interpret the ordinance, and concluded exhaustion (and related exceptions) did not excuse BOPNA from using administrative remedies; it declined to decide the ordinance’s interpretation on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for dismissal | Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was improper; pleadings did not show impossibility of relief (Tucker Estates) | Motion relied on outside materials and should be treated as summary judgment | Court treated motion as converted to summary judgment and reviewed de novo |
| Whether zoning board may interpret zoning ordinance | Court must decide legal interpretation; zoning board lacks power to issue declaratory rulings on ordinance meaning | Zoning board has statutory authority to interpret and apply zoning ordinances; board review is primary | Zoning board has authority to interpret the ordinance; the Superior Court properly declined to issue a declaratory judgment |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies / futility exception | Exhaustion would be futile because BOPNA allegedly lacked effective administrative remedies (cites subsequent dismissal for standing) | Exhaustion is required; at time of suit administrative process was available and appropriate | Exhaustion required; exceptions (lack of jurisdiction or futility) did not apply because board had authority and BOPNA used administrative process and appealed board decisions |
| Request for Supreme Court to decide ordinance interpretation on appeal | Ask court to resolve whether Welcome Center is prohibited (nonconforming use change, restaurant ban, accessory use) | Issues are appropriate for zoning board first; factual/record development needed | Court declined to address substantive ordinance interpretation, leaving those questions to the zoning board/administrative process and related appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Tucker Estates Charlestown, LLC v. Town of Charlestown, 964 A.2d 1138 (R.I. 2009) (limits on Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of declaratory-judgment actions)
- Multi-State Restoration, Inc. v. DWS Properties, LLC, 61 A.3d 414 (R.I. 2013) (Rule 12(b)(6) conversion to summary judgment when outside materials considered)
- Newstone Development, LLC v. East Pacific, LLC, 140 A.3d 100 (R.I. 2016) (summary-judgment standard on appeal)
- Duffy v. Milder, 896 A.2d 27 (R.I. 2006) (zoning boards are statutory bodies with legislatively delineated powers)
- RICO Corp. v. Town of Exeter, 787 A.2d 1136 (R.I. 2001) (zoning board lacks authority to declare legality of a preexisting use)
- Olean v. Zoning Board of Review of Lincoln, 220 A.2d 177 (R.I. 1966) (zoning board cannot assume power to issue declaratory judgments about preexisting uses)