Paolino, J.
This is a petition for certiorari brought to ■review a judgment entered by a justice of the Superior Court remanding an administrative agency decision.
In December 1972, the Bayside Development Corp. (hereinafter Bayside) filed an application with the Coastal Resources Management Council (hereinafter the council) for approval of the construction of a high rise apartment building on Chepiwanoxet Island in Warwick. A subcommittee of the council held a public hearing on the application the following April and subsequently recommended its approval. Another public hearing was held before the full council 4 months later, and the application was thereafter approved.
The city of Warwick, the town of East Greenwich, and Save the Bay, Inc., together with the East Greenwich Yacht Club filed three separate complaints under G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §42-35-15 seeking judicial review of the council’s action. Bayside intervened as a defendant in the action and moved for judgment on the ■pleadings in all three actions. It questioned the standing of each of -the plaintiffs and the timeliness of the city of Warwick’s filing of its complaint. On the basis of the complaints and affidavits in opposition to Bayside’s motion, a justice of the Superior 'Court found standing on the part of each plaintiff, found no merit to the challenge of Warwick’s late filing in Providence County, and therefore denied that motion. The cases were consolidated and heard before another justice of the Superior Court. That justice found the council’s decision insufficient in findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately .stated, as required by §42-35-12, and remanded the case to the council for further proceedings. A petition for writ of certiorari was filed by Bayside and the writ was issued in November 1975.
Rayside raises four issues in the instant proceeding: (1) Are the plaintiffs aggrieved persons under §42-35-15? (2) Was the action brought by the city of Warwick filed timely? (3) Was the city of Warwick estopped from seeking judicial review? and (4) Was the council’s decision insufficient in finding of facts?
Under our Administrative Procedures Act the standing of those seeking judicial review of administrative agency decisions is determined by their meeting two criteria, that they be persons aggrieved by the administrative action taken, and that they first exhaust administrative remedies. Section 42-35-15. All the respondents in this case participated in the proceeding before the council and its subcommittee. Once the decision was made by the full council, administrative remedies were exhausted. Bayside questions, however, the propriety of granting respondents the status of aggrieved persons. This court recently formulated a test of standing.
“The question is whether the person whose standing is challenged has alleged an injury in fact * * * if he has, he satisfies the requirement of standing.”
Rhode Island Ophthalmological Soc.
v.
Cannon,
113 R.I. 16, 26, 317 A.2d 124, 129 (1974).
While not adopted with specific reference to the statute here in question, this standard accurately defines an aggrieved person within the meaning of §42-35-15. See
New England Tel. & Tel. Co.
v.
Fascio,
105 R.I. 711, 717, 254 A.2d 758, 761 (1969).
Both East Greenwich Yacht Club and Save the Bay, Inc., allege and provide supporting affidavits that their members are adversely affected by the council’s action. They contend that construction will damage the coastal environment and that their use of waters surrounding Chepiwanoxet Island will thereby be affected. Use by and injury to its members provides the organizational plain
tiff with the esssential element of an “injury in fact.”
These organizations, as representatives of those injured in fact, stand as persons within the meaning of the statute. Section 42-35-l(f).
The town of East Greenwich, in its complaint and affidavit, asserts that its citizens 'also use the area and will be affected if construction is allowed. The municipality stands, then, on the same footing as East Greenwich Yacht Club and Save the Bay, Inc. Under §42-35-1 (f) a governmental subdivision is specifically contemplated as a “person” under the relevant chapter. Further, the town asserts that its own plans for development of recreational facilities in adjacent waters will be affected by the proposed construction. While the city of Warwick is less specific in its complaint and did not submit an affidavit, its position as a representative of its citizens is clear as shown by paragraph 5 of its complaint which reads as follows:
“Your plaintiff is the City of Warwick and by virtue of being the local government within the confines of Warwick is entrusted with the public health, safety, morals and welfare of its inhabitants and that because of that trust, your plaintiff is adversely affected and ■aggrieved by the decision of The Coastal Resources Management Council * *
If the decision of the council to permit construction within a municipality is faulty, that decision of necessity aggrieves that municipality and its citizens. What is of “immediate and potential value to the present and future development of this state”
must be of value to that sub
division of the state in which it occurs. If this asset is not protected by the council as the Legislature has mandated it should be, that subdivision has recourse under §42-35-15. As we have in the past, we note that government may be aggrieved when the public interest is affected.
City of East Providence
v.
Shell Oil Co.,
110 R.I. 138, 143, 290 A.2d 915, 918 (1972);
Buffi
v.
Ferri,
106 R.I. 349, 351, 259 A.2d 847, 849 (1969). That the Legislature has designated ooncern for our coastal resources a matter of great public interest is evident in the legislative findings of §46-23-1.
The second question raised by Bay side is whether the action brought by the city of Warwick was filed timely in Providence County. Section 42-35-15 (b) required that requests for judicial review be instituted by filing a complaint in the Superior Court of Providence within 30 days ■after the mailing notice of a final 'decision.
The council’s decision was rendered at a hearing on September 5, 1973, ■and notice thereof was mailed on Sepetmber 21, 1973. The ■city of Warwick filed its complaint in Kent County Superior Court on October 18, 1973, within the 30-day limit.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Paolino, J.
This is a petition for certiorari brought to ■review a judgment entered by a justice of the Superior Court remanding an administrative agency decision.
In December 1972, the Bayside Development Corp. (hereinafter Bayside) filed an application with the Coastal Resources Management Council (hereinafter the council) for approval of the construction of a high rise apartment building on Chepiwanoxet Island in Warwick. A subcommittee of the council held a public hearing on the application the following April and subsequently recommended its approval. Another public hearing was held before the full council 4 months later, and the application was thereafter approved.
The city of Warwick, the town of East Greenwich, and Save the Bay, Inc., together with the East Greenwich Yacht Club filed three separate complaints under G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §42-35-15 seeking judicial review of the council’s action. Bayside intervened as a defendant in the action and moved for judgment on the ■pleadings in all three actions. It questioned the standing of each of -the plaintiffs and the timeliness of the city of Warwick’s filing of its complaint. On the basis of the complaints and affidavits in opposition to Bayside’s motion, a justice of the Superior 'Court found standing on the part of each plaintiff, found no merit to the challenge of Warwick’s late filing in Providence County, and therefore denied that motion. The cases were consolidated and heard before another justice of the Superior Court. That justice found the council’s decision insufficient in findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately .stated, as required by §42-35-12, and remanded the case to the council for further proceedings. A petition for writ of certiorari was filed by Bayside and the writ was issued in November 1975.
Rayside raises four issues in the instant proceeding: (1) Are the plaintiffs aggrieved persons under §42-35-15? (2) Was the action brought by the city of Warwick filed timely? (3) Was the city of Warwick estopped from seeking judicial review? and (4) Was the council’s decision insufficient in finding of facts?
Under our Administrative Procedures Act the standing of those seeking judicial review of administrative agency decisions is determined by their meeting two criteria, that they be persons aggrieved by the administrative action taken, and that they first exhaust administrative remedies. Section 42-35-15. All the respondents in this case participated in the proceeding before the council and its subcommittee. Once the decision was made by the full council, administrative remedies were exhausted. Bayside questions, however, the propriety of granting respondents the status of aggrieved persons. This court recently formulated a test of standing.
“The question is whether the person whose standing is challenged has alleged an injury in fact * * * if he has, he satisfies the requirement of standing.”
Rhode Island Ophthalmological Soc.
v.
Cannon,
113 R.I. 16, 26, 317 A.2d 124, 129 (1974).
While not adopted with specific reference to the statute here in question, this standard accurately defines an aggrieved person within the meaning of §42-35-15. See
New England Tel. & Tel. Co.
v.
Fascio,
105 R.I. 711, 717, 254 A.2d 758, 761 (1969).
Both East Greenwich Yacht Club and Save the Bay, Inc., allege and provide supporting affidavits that their members are adversely affected by the council’s action. They contend that construction will damage the coastal environment and that their use of waters surrounding Chepiwanoxet Island will thereby be affected. Use by and injury to its members provides the organizational plain
tiff with the esssential element of an “injury in fact.”
These organizations, as representatives of those injured in fact, stand as persons within the meaning of the statute. Section 42-35-l(f).
The town of East Greenwich, in its complaint and affidavit, asserts that its citizens 'also use the area and will be affected if construction is allowed. The municipality stands, then, on the same footing as East Greenwich Yacht Club and Save the Bay, Inc. Under §42-35-1 (f) a governmental subdivision is specifically contemplated as a “person” under the relevant chapter. Further, the town asserts that its own plans for development of recreational facilities in adjacent waters will be affected by the proposed construction. While the city of Warwick is less specific in its complaint and did not submit an affidavit, its position as a representative of its citizens is clear as shown by paragraph 5 of its complaint which reads as follows:
“Your plaintiff is the City of Warwick and by virtue of being the local government within the confines of Warwick is entrusted with the public health, safety, morals and welfare of its inhabitants and that because of that trust, your plaintiff is adversely affected and ■aggrieved by the decision of The Coastal Resources Management Council * *
If the decision of the council to permit construction within a municipality is faulty, that decision of necessity aggrieves that municipality and its citizens. What is of “immediate and potential value to the present and future development of this state”
must be of value to that sub
division of the state in which it occurs. If this asset is not protected by the council as the Legislature has mandated it should be, that subdivision has recourse under §42-35-15. As we have in the past, we note that government may be aggrieved when the public interest is affected.
City of East Providence
v.
Shell Oil Co.,
110 R.I. 138, 143, 290 A.2d 915, 918 (1972);
Buffi
v.
Ferri,
106 R.I. 349, 351, 259 A.2d 847, 849 (1969). That the Legislature has designated ooncern for our coastal resources a matter of great public interest is evident in the legislative findings of §46-23-1.
The second question raised by Bay side is whether the action brought by the city of Warwick was filed timely in Providence County. Section 42-35-15 (b) required that requests for judicial review be instituted by filing a complaint in the Superior Court of Providence within 30 days ■after the mailing notice of a final 'decision.
The council’s decision was rendered at a hearing on September 5, 1973, ■and notice thereof was mailed on Sepetmber 21, 1973. The ■city of Warwick filed its complaint in Kent County Superior Court on October 18, 1973, within the 30-day limit. The council, then sole defendant, and the city stipulated that the case could be transferred to the Superior Court in Providence, where action should have originated under §42-35-15(b), and that it could be filed out-of-time. An order for transfer was entered by a justice sitting in Kent County on October 26, 1973, and the complaint filed in Providence Superior Court on October 30, 1973.
Because action in Providence commenced more than 30 ■days after mailing notice of the council’s decision, Bay-side contends that the complaint was not filed timely under the controlling statute, §42-35-15 (b). The city of Warwick, on the contrary, argues that the transfer and filing out-of-time were authorized by the provisions of §§9-4-6 and 9-12-2. We cannot agree with the city’s position. Section 9-12-2 was repealed by P.L. 1965, ch. 55, §25
and is therefore not pertinent here. Section 9-4-6 is not applicable here as this is not an original action but strictly one seeking judicial review of an administrative agency’s decision and is therefore an action under the provisions of §42-35-15(b) of the Administrative Procedures Act.
In the peculiar circumstances of this case, however, we do not agree with Bayside’® contention that the late filing in Providence County should deprive the city of Warwick of its right to judicial review. The complaint was filed within the 30-day limit in the proper court, that is, the Superior Court, albeit in the wrong place, Kent County rather than Providence County. Further, there was no undue prejudice to Bayside, which did not intervene in this action until November 28, 1973. We hold that the delay in filing in Providence was not fatal.
Bayside argues that the city of Warwick is estopped from seeking judicial review of the council’s decision by the fact that Bayside had been granted an exception by the city’s zoning review board. The duties and concerns of a zoning board are not coextensive with those of a city or town, and we are not persuaded that in the circumstances of this case such an identity of interest exists between the city and its agency that the approval by the latter implies approval by the former. Further, the action of the zoning board was not final in that no construction could begin in reliance on that decision without approval of the council. The key element of an estoppel is intentionally induced prejudicial reliance,
Raymond
v.
B.I.F. Industries, Inc.,
112 R.I. 192, 198-99, 308 A.2d 820, 823 (1973); none has been shown and none can be inferred in this ease.
The final question raised by Bayside concerns the sufficiency of findings of fact in the council’s decision. Our Administrative Procedures Act requires that:
Higgins, Cavanagh & Cooney, Harold E. Adams, Jr.,
for petitioner.
Joseph J. McGair,
Associate City Solicitor,
Gerald G. Norigian & Shayle Robinson,
for Bayside Development Oorp., respondent.
“Any final decision or order adverse to a party in a contested case shall be in writing or stated in the record. Any final decision shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated. Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings.” General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §42-35-12.
The transcript of the hearing at which the council made its decision is not before us. Unfortunately the written decision of the council is bereft of any factfinding. It contains instead the following conclusion:
“[T]he Council feels that there will be no substantial detriment to the ecological balance of the area. As the evidence shows the impact upon various ecological systems involved will be minimal, it is hereby the decision of this Council to grant the petition * *.”
The absence of required findings makes judicial review impossible, clearly frustrating §42-35-15, the statute for review under which the plaintiffs filed their complaints, and fails to satisfy the statutory requirements of §42-35-12.
The petition for certiorari is denied and dismissed, the writ improvidently issued is quashed, and the papers certified to us are to be returned to the Superior Court with our decision endorsed thereon.