Key v. Brown Univ.
| Decision Date | 27 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 2015–4–Appeal, No. 2015–110–Appeal,PC 12-4449,2015–4–Appeal |
| Citation | 163 A.3d 1162 |
| Parties | Stephen L. KEY et al. v. BROWN UNIVERSITY et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
For Plaintiffs: Justin T. Shay, Esq., Leah L. Miraldi, Esq., Providence.
For Defendants: Andrew M. Teitz, Esq., Lisa Dinerman, Esq., Providence.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
The plaintiffs, Stephen L. Key, as Trustee of the Stephen L. Key Trust–2008 (the trust), and individually (Key), and Melanie D. Mitchell (collectively, plaintiffs), appeal from a judgment entered in Superior Court in favor of the defendants, Brown University (Brown or Brown University) and the City of Providence (the city). The first count of the plaintiffs' verified second-amended complaint, which is the sole issue on appeal, sought a declaration that Brown University's construction of an artificial-turf field hockey field with attendant bleachers, press box, electronic scoreboard, and public-address system was an unlawful use under the Providence zoning ordinances. Ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek such a declaration, a Superior Court justice granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment as to count 1 and entered judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons explained herein, we vacate the judgment of the Superior Court.
Although the issue before us is narrow (viz. , whether plaintiffs have standing to pursue a claim for declaratory relief), we find it useful to set forth the nature of the controversy in some detail. This case arises from Brown University's project to undertake various renovations to the Wendell R. Erickson Athletic Complex (the complex) in Providence. The complex is located at the corner of Hope Street and Lloyd Avenue in the city's East Side. Brown University purchased the complex in 1957 and has utilized it for the purpose of athletics for more than fifty years. The plaintiffs Key and Mitchell are husband and wife and reside in a 19th century Victorian house owned by the trust (the property). The property is located in the Stimson Avenue Historic District and abuts the field hockey field. At the time Key moved into the property in 1995, the complex had been in use for athletics and entertainment purposes for several decades.
In 2010, Brown University was in the preliminary phase of planning several renovations to the complex, including the replacement of a practice soccer field with a new field hockey field. The following spring, Brown University organized several community forums to discuss the proposed project with residents from the surrounding neighborhood. These forums provided an opportunity for the community to raise "questions and concerns" regarding the proposed renovations before the plans were submitted to the city for approval. Key was aware of a forum but chose not to attend. In or about May 2011, Brown University submitted an amendment to its Institutional Master Plan (IMP) to the Providence City Plan Commission (CPC), seeking approval for the various renovations to the complex. According to plaintiffs, the IMP included a sketch depicting the field hockey field in a different location from where it was subsequently constructed, and it failed to indicate that the field would include a grandstand, press box, electronic scoreboard, and a public-address system. The IMP did state that the project would include:
Later that summer, on July 19, 2011, the CPC, pursuant to Article IX, § 903.4 of the City of Providence Zoning Ordinances of 1994, as amended, held a public hearing to discuss Brown University's IMP.1 According to the city, the CPC had previously provided all notice required by law—i.e. , the Providence zoning ordinances and the Rhode Island Zoning Enabling Act (the act).2 Nevertheless, Key did not attend the meeting nor did he provide the CPC with any written objections.3 At the meeting, the IMP was discussed by city officials and interested parties. As noted above, however, the IMP did not include certain features that form the core of plaintiffs' current controversy with Brown—specifically, the scoreboard, bleachers, press box, public-address system, and the correct location of the field. The IMP was approved by the CPC on July 22, 2011. Once approved, there was a twenty-day statutory period for an appeal to be filed to the board. The plaintiffs, however, did not appeal this decision.
The following spring, on April 11, 2012, before construction commenced, Brown University held an additional community forum to discuss the project with neighbors directly abutting the complex. On this occasion, Brown University hand-delivered letters, dated April 4, 2012, to its closest neighbors to be affected by the construction in the complex. In the letter, Brown University indicated that the forum was to "present[ ] details about the Stevenson Field improvement project, planned for May–September 2012." In particular, the letter stated that Brown would "be discussing the scope, timeline, details, and mitigation measures involved in the project, which [would] include installing a regulation field hockey field (AstroTurf) on the field just east of Meister Kavan, [and] resurfacing Stevenson Field with Field–Turf" among other things. Key acknowledges that he received the hand-delivered letter putting him on notice of the forum; but, nonetheless, he did not attend.4 According to Brown University, construction on the complex began in May 2012.
On June 7, 2012, Brown University applied for a building permit for construction of athletic field bleachers at the complex. The permit issued described that Brown was permitted to build a field hockey stadium, a foundation for sport bleachers, and all related site works to construct open bleachers seating with a capacity of 505 occupants and "a combustible press box" on top of the structure at the athletic field. The permit was approved on June 14, 2012.
A month later, on July 10, 2012, Brown University personnel met with Key at a conference room in the complex to discuss the project. The following day, Key sent an email to Brown University requesting another meeting with its representatives, this time at the property. On July 12, 2012, Key again met with Brown officials. According to Key, in that meeting, he learned "for the first time" that Brown was installing a public-address system and scoreboard on the field. As a result, Key sent another email to Brown University communicating his concerns about what he believed were misrepresentations made at the July 10 meeting.
Key then sent a letter written to the CPC, addressed to Christopher J. Ise and Jason Martin, principal planners for the Historic District Commission, dated August 2, 2012. In the letter, Key expressed his concern over Brown's project and also averred that he was "frankly astonished that there was not a more thorough questioning of the Brown University [IMP]," which had been "submitted to the [CPC] for approval."
The following day, August 3, 2012, plaintiffs, through counsel, sent Brown University a cease-and-desist letter, enunciating that the "renovation and new construction * * * ha[d] departed significantly from the IMP approved by the CPC and from representations [that had been] made directly to area residents by representatives of Brown University." In addition, the letter claimed that "Brown ha[d] failed to inform area residents of the scope and invasive nature of the work that it would employ to accomplish this unapproved construction."
Several weeks later, plaintiffs filed a verified complaint in Superior Court. The complaint named Brown University as defendant and alleged a violation of the applicable law, as it applied to the approved IMP, nuisance, and negligence, and asked the court for injunctive relief and property damages.
Thereafter, on September 18, 2012, plaintiffs, again through counsel, sent the city solicitor a letter requesting that the city file suit against Brown University pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 45–24–62"to enjoin [Brown's] unlawful use [of the complex] and order the removal of the [field] hockey field * * *."5 Approximately eight months later, on May 15, 2013, plaintiffs sent a letter to the Department of Inspections and Standards (the DIS), demanding enforcement of Brown University's IMP. In the letter, plaintiffs summarized the sequence of events for which they believed that relief should be granted, and enumerated the "[d]eficiencies" in Brown University's IMP. In closing, plaintiffs stated that "[a] cease and desist order addressed to Brown should issue from the [DIS] forthwith ordering Brown to immediately cease and desist using the [field] hockey field constructed in violation of applicable law and ordering Brown to remove the [field] hockey field and amenities."
The city took no action in response to plaintiffs' demands, causing plaintiffs to "appeal" from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrop v. R.I. Div. of Lotteries
...which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." See e.g., Key v. Brown University, 163 A.3d 1162, 1169 (R.I. 2017). Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not suffered a legal injury because he was not denied any legal right. Instead, Defe......
-
Benson v. McKee
...to bring suit" and present "some legal hypothesis which will entitle the plaintiff to real and articulable relief." Key v. Brown University , 163 A.3d 1162, 1168 (R.I. 2017) (second quote quoting N & M Properties, LLC v. Town of West Warwick , 964 A.2d 1141, 1145 (R.I. 2009) ). Simply put, ......
-
W.H.I., Inc. v. James Courter
...regulations, '[t]he Superior Court has the power to construe a statute and to declare the rights and obligations of the parties.'" Key, 163 A.3d at 1171 (quoting P.J.C. Inc. v. Barry, 811 A.2d 1202, 1207 (R.I. 2002)). This Court therefore declares that § 34-36.1-1.06 of the Act makes it a r......