Opinion ID: 6352896
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Second Decision

Text: On December 8, 2020, the hearing justice issued a second decision in the case, in which he stated that he was reviewing the parties’ motions “in light of the expanded record.” In detailing the facts, the hearing justice noted that the Knowledge District Plan “was prepared by a group of residents, business owners, institutional representatives, and the Providence Planning Department, and was intended to serve as a guideline for future development, zoning regulations, and - 12 - areas for further investigation.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The hearing justice then reiterated his previous ruling with respect to the rebuttable presumption of validity to which the Amendment was entitled and the other determinations set forth in his May 13, 2020 decision. The hearing justice began his analysis by addressing the significance of Maps 11.2 and 11.3 in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan defines Map 11.2 as “‘the official Land Use Map of the city’ which ‘provides the basis for the Zoning Ordinance.’” (Quoting the Comprehensive Plan.) He then noted that Map 11.2 designated the subject parcel as downtown/mixed-use and did not indicate height requirements. According to the hearing justice, Map 11.3, on the other hand, was meant to “identify ‘inconsistencies between the City’s existing zoning ordinance and the proposed future land use.’” (Quoting the Comprehensive Plan.) He noted that Map 11.3 showed the subject parcel as having a D-1-100 zoning designation. Ultimately, the hearing justice determined that “in order for an Amendment to comply with the Comprehensive Plan, it must be consistent with Map 11.2    which does not contain specific height designations.” He noted that he had already held that the Comprehensive Plan contemplated increases in building height and allowed for height sub-districts in the downtown/mixed-use area, and he stated that it would be “inconsistent to then hold that Map 11.3 sets forth specific - 13 - height restrictions triggering a requirement to amend the Comprehensive Plan for any increase or added sub-district.” He concluded that plaintiffs’ evidence with respect to Map 11.3 was insufficient to rebut the presumption of the Amendment’s validity. The hearing justice then proceeded to address the issue of the Amendment’s compliance with the Knowledge District Plan and Objective IMP3. The hearing justice indicated that Objective “IMP3 states that a strategy for implementation is to ‘[m]aintain existing uses, density and character in Areas of Change designated on Map 11.1 Areas of Stability and Change until the relevant neighborhood or specific plans and corresponding amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance have been adopted.’” (Quoting the Comprehensive Plan.) He also noted that the Knowledge District Plan labeled zoning for the subject parcel as D-1-100. He found that neither the language of Objective IMP3 nor the zoning designation in the Knowledge District Plan rendered the Amendment inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan already took account of “the important ideas and concepts which arose from the neighborhood planning process.” (Quoting the Comprehensive Plan.) He went on to note that the Knowledge District Plan itself stated that “it was meant to ‘establish an inspirational vision that will spur investment and facilitate new growth and prosperity in Providence.’” (Quoting the Knowledge District Plan.) In contrast, - 14 - according to the hearing justice, the Comprehensive Plan was more than an “innocuous general-policy statement,” but rather created a “binding framework or blueprint   .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) He further noted that it was required that the Comprehensive Plan be adopted in the same manner as an ordinance. Ultimately, the hearing justice stated that, while the Comprehensive Plan did make reference to neighborhood plans, he did not read the Comprehensive Plan “as incorporating by reference mandatory zoning designations from the Knowledge District Plan   .” Accordingly, he held that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the Amendment was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan based on the height designations in the Knowledge District Plan. He further held that there was “at least some discussion” of the Knowledge District Plan during the Amendment approval process and that therefore there had not been a “wholesale failure to ‘consider’ certain factors as described in that objective.” The hearing justice then discussed plaintiffs’ argument that the Comprehensive Plan was not in accordance with Objective BE2, Section 11.1, and Objective H2. The hearing justice detailed the legislative findings made by the City Council and noted that “the Amendment faced a robust and lengthy review process   .” He then stated that a “municipality has discretion in choosing options for conforming its ordinances or land use decisions to its comprehensive - 15 - plan,” and he held that plaintiffs had “not met their burden of rebutting the Amendment’s presumption of validity by putting forth specific evidence that the Amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The hearing justice then denied plaintiffs’ motion, granted defendants’ motions, and stated that he would not invalidate the Amendment pursuant to § 45-24-71. Thereafter, on December 14, 2020, an order issued, which stated that plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on stipulated facts was denied and defendants’ motions for judgment on stipulated facts were granted. Final judgment entered the same day, and a timely notice of appeal was filed.