Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 10, 2013 1 Volume 7 Issue 9 DECISION: Vacated and matter remanded with instructions. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island agreed with the Anoliks. It held that the contested agenda item failed to meet the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. The court explained that when the General Assembly included in § 42-46-6(b) a requirement that there be "a statement specifying the nature of the business to be discussed," without explicitly indicating what such a statement should include, it "intended to establish a flex- ible standard aimed at providing fair notice to the public under the cir- cumstances . . .." Accordingly, the court said that, here, the Board was required to "provide fair notice to the public under the circum- stances, or such notice based on the totality of the circumstances as would fairly inform the public of the nature of the business to be discussed or acted upon." Here, the court found that the disputed agenda item failed to "rea- sonably describe the purpose of the meeting or the action proposed to be taken . . . ." The court found the agenda item simply indicated that a communication had been received from on Turner Scott regarding a petition of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. The court also found that the agenda item failed to: specify the property that was at issue, providing no information as to a street address, a parcel or lot number, or even an identifying petition or case number; or to provide any information as to exactly what was the reason for the requested extension or what would be its duration. Additionally, and determinatively, the court also found that by designating the agenda item under the rubric of "Communica- tions," the Board failed to infonn the public that any action would be taken with respect to the agenda item. The court determined that "in no way [did] the agenda item give notice that the request for extension was to extend the temporal parameters then in effect for the purpose of completing or substantially completing the improvements." Because the agenda item did not fairly infoini the public of the nature of the business to be discussed or acted upon, the court concluded that it did not comply with the standards established by the Open Meetings Act. The court vacated the superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Board. Also, the court remanded the matter to the superior court with instructions that: summary judgment be issued in favor of the Anoliks; and action taken by the Board with respect to the exten- sion requested by Turner Scott be declared null and void. See also: Tanner v. Town Council of Town of East Greenwich, 880 A.2d 784 (R.I. 2005). ©2013 Thomson Reuters 7