Mandate for Comprehensive Fact-Finding in Declaratory Challenges to Zoning Ordinance Validity

Introduction

Koziol Firearms, Inc. v. Kevin Marchand, in his capacity as member of the Zoning Board of Review of the City of Central Falls, Rhode Island, et al., No. 2024-128-Appeal (R.I. May 13, 2025), arises from a dispute over whether a 1992 amendment to Central Falls’s zoning code was validly enacted. Ronald and Christopher Koziol formed Koziol Firearms, Inc. in 2022 to operate a firearms manufacturing and sales business on their property at 877 High Street. That property had once been zoned M-2 Heavy Industrial but was reclassified as R-2 Residential in 1992, rendering the existing automotive repair use nonconforming and barring firearms sales without a variance or special permit.

After the Zoning Board of Review denied their use-variance application, Koziol Firearms appealed to Superior Court and added a declaratory-judgment count challenging the validity of the 1992 rezoning ordinance. The trial justice dismissed that count without prejudice for lack of evidence in the certified record. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island vacated in part and remanded, holding that a trial court must undertake fact-finding in declaratory-judgment challenges to ordinance validity rather than mechanically limit itself to the administrative record.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court:

Denied summary cause to summarily decide the appeal;
Concluded that the trial justice erred in refusing to consider additional evidence and in treating the declaratory-judgment count as procedurally barred;
Held that in declaratory actions challenging a zoning amendment’s validity, the court must evaluate evidence, make factual findings, and exercise its discretion rather than dismiss for lack of administrative-record evidence;
Vacated the dismissal of Count II (the declaratory-judgment claim) and remanded for a full hearing and fact-finding on procedural notice of the 1992 amendment;
Left intact the denial of the variance itself, as it was supported by substantial evidence in the certified record.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Bruce Brayman Builders, Inc. v. Lamphere, 109 A.3d 395 (R.I. 2015): Establishes that declaratory-judgment relief rests in the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be overturned absent abuse.
Town of Barrington v. Williams, 972 A.2d 603 (R.I. 2009): Reaffirms the trial justice’s role in fact-finding when disposing of declaratory actions.
Hagenberg v. Avedisian, 879 A.2d 436 (R.I. 2005): Confirms that appellate review of a declaratory-judgment ruling looks for errors of law or fact-finding.
Mill Road Realty Associates, LLC v. Town of Foster, 326 A.3d 1085 (R.I. 2024): Declines to address legal issues not first explored in the trial court.
Riley v. Narragansett Pension Board, 275 A.3d 545 (R.I. 2022): Emphasizes remand when factual development is incomplete.

These precedents guided the Court’s conclusion that the trial justice improperly curtailed fact-finding and misunderstood the standard for declaratory relief.

Legal Reasoning

1. Trial Court Discretion and Fact-Finding
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a trial justice deciding a declaratory-judgment count must weigh evidence, make factual determinations, and then decide whether justice warrants relief. By dismissing Count II without prejudice solely because the certified administrative record lacked evidence on notice of the 1992 amendment, the trial justice misapplied the discretion-and-fact-finding principles from Bruce Brayman and Town of Barrington.

2. Certified Record vs. Expanded Evidence
While zoning-appeal Count I was properly confined to the record before the Zoning Board, Koziol’s declaratory count challenged the validity of the underlying ordinance itself—a question beyond the Board’s authority to decide. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required where the administrative body lacks jurisdiction to rule on the legality of its own enabling legislation. Thus, facts outside the certified record—e.g., procedural notice to property owners in 1992—are legitimately before the Superior Court.

3. Remand for Full Hearing
The Court held that remand is required so that the Superior Court can conduct a hearing with all relevant evidence, resolve factual disputes, and then determine whether the 1992 amendment was void ab initio for lack of proper notice or other procedural defects.

Impact

Declaratory-Judgment Practice: Trial courts in Rhode Island must undertake full fact-finding in declaratory-judgment suits attacking zoning ordinances, even when administrative records are silent.
Zoning Litigation: Property owners may challenge the procedural validity of zoning amendments in Superior Court without exhausting administrative remedies if the administrative body lacks jurisdiction over ordinance validity.
Municipal Process: Municipalities should ensure rigorous compliance with notice requirements when amending zoning codes to avoid later challenges and remands.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Certified Record: The file of materials (testimony, exhibits, minutes) officially transmitted from the zoning board to the superior court in a zoning appeal.
Declaratory Relief: A court’s determination of the legal status or rights of parties without ordering any specific action or awarding damages.
Administrative Exhaustion: The principle that a party must use all available administrative procedures before suing in court, unless the administrative agency lacks power to decide the issue.
Nonconforming Use: A lawful pre-existing land use that no longer complies with current zoning restrictions but is allowed to continue.
Use Variance: A discretionary permit allowing property owners to use land in a way not normally permitted by the zoning code.
Laches: An equitable defense that bars claims brought after undue delay, harming the opposing party.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island has clarified that when a landowner seeks a declaratory judgment that a zoning ordinance is void for procedural defects, the superior court must receive and weigh all relevant evidence and make explicit factual findings before granting or denying relief. Procedural technicalities cannot substitute for the exercise of judicial discretion and fact-finding. This decision will guide future challenges to municipal zoning amendments and ensure that property owners receive a full evidentiary hearing on the validity of land-use regulations.