Campbell v. Tiverton Zoning Board, 15 A.3d 1015

TYC nonconforming use since 1964 in a residential zone; waterfront marina on separate lot existed since late 1980s; post-fire rebuild plan received building permit in 2006, challenged by neighbors; Superior Court bench trial in 2007-2009 found unlawful expansion of nonconforming use and marina tandem with clubhouse; Tiverton Town Council amended zoning in 2010 eliminating the clubhouse lot's nonconformity and creating a Waterfront-Related floating zone; this Court vacated the marina-related portion as to restriction and denied attorney’s fees claim, remanding the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Campbells have standing to challenge zoning actions.	Campbells contend they are entitled to challenge the permit as unlawful expansion.	TYC argues plaintiffs lack standing to enforce town zoning.	moot as to clubhouse nonconformity; standing not reached for marina issue.
Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was required.	Campbells relied on Superior Court declaratory action.	TZB appealed; administrative remedies not exhausted.	The act and proceedings did not require exhaustion; denial affirmed.
Whether the trial court relied on the current zoning ordinance rather than the 1964 ordinance.	Campbells rely on original nonconforming status.	TYC asserts current ordinance governs.	Issue deemed moot after zoning amendments; no relief on merits.
Whether the marina on the waterfront lot can be prohibited as an unlawful expansion.	Marina is a standalone use permitted on waterfront lot; prohibition exceeds authority.	Marina deemed tandem with clubhouse expansion.	The marina on its own lot is not restrained; trial court abused its authority.
Whether Campbells are entitled to attorney’s fees under Equal Access to Justice Act.	Campbells prevail on declaratory judgment and fee should follow.	Building official actions not adjudicatory proceedings under the act.	Denied; no adjudicatory proceeding under the act.

Houde v. State, 973 A.2d 493 (R.I. 2009) (deference to declaratory judgments; standards of review)
Fravala v. City of Cranston ex rel. Baron, 996 A.2d 696 (R.I. 2010) (great deference to declaratory relief decisions)
International Brotherhood of Police Officers v. City of East Providence, 989 A.2d 106 (R.I. 2010) (deference on questions of law; abuse of discretion standard for declaratory relief)
Sullivan v. Chafee, 703 A.2d 748 (R.I. 1997) (mootness and reviewability principles in declaratory actions)
In re Westerly Hospital, 963 A.2d 636 (R.I. 2009) (mootness and public importance exceptions to review)