274 A.3d 1
R.I.2022Background:
- Freepoint Solar entered an option to lease a Richmond R-3 parcel to build a 4.99MW ground-mounted PV facility and applied (Nov 2018) for a special‑use permit; Richmond zoning ordinance § 18.34.030(A) required the entire lot to be within two miles of a "utility substation."
- Freepoint identified an Amtrak substation near 530 Church Street as satisfying the two‑mile utility‑substation requirement; the Planning Board recommended approval and found the property within two miles of that substation.
- At Zoning Board hearings the town solicitor introduced a 2017 Town Council video and map, arguing the council intended "utility substation" to mean specific National Grid substations; neighbors and board members debated the term’s meaning.
- Freepoint presented uncontradicted expert testimony that a "substation" is defined by the presence of transformers and that the Amtrak facility met that definition and lay within two miles.
- The Zoning Board’s votes produced a 3–2 majority to grant but failed to reach the four‑vote threshold, so the permit was denied; Superior Court reversed, holding the phrase "utility substation" plain and that substantial evidence supported Freepoint; Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the phrase "utility substation" in § 18.34.030(A) is plain or ambiguous | Freepoint: the phrase is plain and includes any public utility substation (Amtrak qualifies) | Town: ambiguous; drafters intended to limit to National Grid substations (extrinsic evidence supports) | Phrase is unambiguous; plain meaning controls and includes Amtrak as a utility substation |
| Whether the Zoning Board committed error of law by relying on alleged Town Council intent/extrinsic materials | Freepoint: Board impermissibly looked beyond the ordinance’s plain text and erred | Town: Board properly considered council video/map to discern intent | Court: Board erred; cannot read a limitation into an unambiguous ordinance based on extrinsic materials |
| Whether there was substantial evidence that the Amtrak facility qualifies as a "utility substation" and is within two miles | Freepoint: expert testimony and planning board findings supplied substantial evidence | Town: argued Amtrak’s role (locomotive power vs. supplying electricity) and intent arguments undercut qualification | Substantial, uncontradicted evidence supported that the Amtrak facility is a substation within two miles |
| Remedy — appropriate disposition after finding error | Freepoint: remand for issuance of special‑use permit | Town: challenged Superior Court reversal | Court: Affirmed Superior Court judgment and remanded the record consistent with that judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- New Castle Realty Company v. Dreczko, 248 A.3d 638 (R.I. 2021) (scope of appellate review of Superior Court judgments from zoning appeals)
- Iadevaia v. Town of Scituate Zoning Board of Review, 80 A.3d 864 (R.I. 2013) (standard for judicial review of zoning board decisions)
- Pawtucket Transfer Operations, LLC v. City of Pawtucket, 944 A.2d 855 (R.I. 2008) (zoning/ordinance interpretation reviewed de novo)
- City of Woonsocket v. RISE Prep Mayoral Academy, 251 A.3d 495 (R.I. 2021) (apply plain and ordinary meaning to clear statutory language)
- Drs. Pass and Bertherman, Inc. v. Neighborhood Health Plan of Rhode Island, 31 A.3d 1263 (R.I. 2011) (ambiguity exists when language is susceptible to more than one reasonable meaning)
- Kastal v. Hickory House, Inc., 187 A.2d 262 (R.I. 1963) (court will not seek ambiguity where none exists)