Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/2013

Home

May 10, 2013 i Volume 7 Issue 9 Zoning Bulletin The Background/Facts: In November of 2008, the Zoning Board of Review of the City of Newport (the "Board") received a letter from Turner Scott, counsel for Congregation Jeshuat Israel. The letter requested an extension of the time in which to substantially complete certain improvements to Congregation Jeshuat Israel's property that had been approved by a previous zoning board decision. That previous -- decision had expressly contained a condition to the effect that there be substantial completion of the improvements within two years. Turner Scott's request for an extension of time was referenced in one of the items contained in the "AGENDA" that was posted with re- spect to a February 23, 2009 Board meeting. That agenda item read in its entirety as follows: "IV. Communications: Request for Extension from Turner Scott received 11/30/08 Re: Petition of Congregation Jeshuat Israel" The Board voted unanimously at the February 23, 2009 meeting to ap- prove the request for an extension of time. That vote was reflected in a decision of the Board, dated March 24, 2009, which required (1) that the "improvements must be started and [be] substantially complete [by] February 23, 2011," and (2) that counsel for Congregation Jeshuat Israel would provide "a written update on the progress of the project on or before February 23, 2010." In August 2009, Sheila Anolik, Wendy Anolik, and Jeffrey Anolik (the "Anoliks") filed a legal complaint in superior court, alleging that the above -quoted agenda item violated the Rhode Island Open Meet- ings Act (§ 42-46-6(b).). The Anoliks contended that the agenda item violated the Act because it was a "vague and indefinite" notice to the public and "one lacking specificity." Among other things, the Open Meetings Act requires that public bodies give: "written notice of their regularly scheduled meetings"; and "give supplemental written public notice of any meeting within a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours before the date [of the meeting]." (Section 42-46-6(b).) With respect to that "supplemental written public notice," the statute provides: This notice shall include the date the notice was posted, the date, time and place of the meeting, and a statement specifying the nature of the business to be discussed. (Emphasis added). Here, the Anoliks contended that the agenda item did not constitute "a statement specifying the nature of the business to be discussed," as required by the Open Meetings Act. The superior court disagreed. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the court issued summary judgment in favor of the Board. The Anoliks appealed. 6 © 2013 Thomson Reuters