NORTH END REALTY, LLC v. Mattos
2011 R.I. LEXIS 111
| R.I. | 2011Background
- North End Realty, LLC sought injunctive relief against East Greenwich officials over a local fee-in-lieu for affordable housing.
- Ordinances (Nov. 6, 2006) require 15% affordable units or a $200,000 fee-in-lieu per unit.
- North End planned a five-lot subdivision and did not intend to provide affordable units, triggering the fee.
- Superior Court denied injunctive relief, holding the fee-in-lieu was a valid fee, not an illegal tax or taking.
- North End appealed, arguing lack of statutory authority for the fee-in-lieu and constitutional/ due process concerns.
- Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to grant the requested injunction, holding that specific General Assembly authorization is required for a fee-in-lieu.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to impose fee-in-lieu | North End argues no enabling statute. | East Greenwich asserts LMIHA and plan approval authorize the fee. | Fee-in-lieu requires explicit legislative authorization |
| Tax vs. fee characterization | Fee-in-lieu is an illegal tax without authorization. | Fee-in-lieu is a permissible fee, not a tax, under local power. | Court does not resolve tax status; rights reserved pending authorization |
| Impact on statewide concerns | Authority to impose affects statewide policy; local action cannot suffice. | Local action aligned with LMIHA and plan approval addresses local housing needs. | Statewide concerns require General Assembly enabling legislation |
| Constitutional due process/equal protection | Fee-in-lieu infringes due process and equal protection. | No constitutional violation shown given plan and approvals. | Not dispositive given lack of statutory authorization |
| Remedy requested | Injunctive relief should prevent collection of the fee-in-lieu. | Relief denied where authority uncertain. | Remand with injunction appropriate when authorization is lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of East Greenwich v. O'Neil, 617 A.2d 104 (R.I.1992) (home rule limits; municipalities cannot regulate statewide concerns)
- Westerly Residents for Thoughtful Development, Inc. v. Brancato, 565 A.2d 1262 (R.I.1989) (statewide concerns limit municipal authority)
- Newport Court Club Associates v. Town Council of Middletown, 716 A.2d 787 (R.I.1998) (municipal authority vs statewide mandates from General Assembly)
- Fund for Community Progress v. United Way of Southeastern New England, 695 A.2d 517 (R.I.1997) (injunction standards and discretionary review)