Opinion ID: 6352896
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The First Decision

Text: On May 13, 2020, the hearing justice issued a written decision. The hearing justice began his decision by stating that the motions before him were “essentially” motions for summary judgment and that he would treat them as such. He then proceeded to address the appropriate standard of review under § 45-24-71, concluding that, contrary to plaintiffs’ argument that the review should be de novo, in his view amendments to zoning ordinances were entitled to a presumption of validity. He stated that the presumption that the Amendment was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan was rebuttable, but that plaintiffs had the burden of demonstrating that the Amendment was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The hearing justice then proceeded to discuss many of the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan (specifically, Maps 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, Section 11.2.2, Objective LU9, and Objective BE3) before concluding that it was clear that “the Comprehensive Plan contemplates increases in building heights and densities” and “permits the establishment of sub-districts to address building height.” He specifically found that “the addition of sub-districts to the D-1 zone would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.” The hearing justice then proceeded to detail the legislative findings of the City Council. However, he ultimately held that there were “insufficient facts” for the court to determine whether or not - 11 - plaintiffs had met their burden of rebutting the presumption that the Amendment was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He specifically mentioned that he had not been provided with any of the transcripts of the proceedings before the City Council. The hearing justice denied the cross-motions before him, stating that “[a]lthough there appear to be genuine issues of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate that [the] Amendment is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, th[e] lack of evidence before the Court precludes it from making such a finding.” Numerous transcripts of the proceedings before the City Plan Commission, the Ordinance Committee, and the City Council were then filed with the Superior Court; and the parties filed supplemental memoranda relative to plaintiffs’ motion and defendants’ cross-motions for judgment on stipulated facts.