Peter Scotti & Assocs., Inc. v. Yurdin

• Citation: 276 A.3d 915
• Decision Date: 23 June 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-51-Appeal.,PC 19-283
• Parties: PETER SCOTTI & ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., v. Seth YURDIN, in his official capacity as a Member of the City Council of the City of Providence, et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

276 A.3d 915

PETER SCOTTI & ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.,

v.Seth YURDIN, in his official capacity as a Member of the City Council of the City of Providence, et al.

No. 2021-51-Appeal.

PC 19-283

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 23, 2022

Armando E. Batastini, Esq., for Plaintiffs.

William R. Landry, Esq., Patrick J. McBurney, Esq., Mark W. Freel, Esq., for Defendants.

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

Justice Robinson, for the Court.

We are confronted in this case with a contested amendment to the City of Providence Zoning Ordinance (the zoning ordinance) which would allow the construction of a new high-rise building in Providence's Knowledge District, fundamentally altering the city's skyline. We do not take such a review lightly but embark on it with due appreciation for the contested nature of the amendment at issue and the tremendous impact our decision will have on Providence and everyone interested in this case.

The plaintiffs in the instant case, Peter Scotti & Associates, Inc. and Building Bridges Providence, seek review by this Court of a December 14, 2020 judgment of the Providence County Superior Court denying and dismissing all claims in plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. That judgment followed a decision of the Superior Court that it would not invalidate the zoning amendment at issue under G.L. 1956 § 45-24-71.¹ The plaintiffs contend before this Court that "legislative deference should not apply to a § 45-24-71 challenge" and that the amendment is inconsistent with Providence's comprehensive plan entitled "Providence Tomorrow: The Comprehensive Plan" (the Comprehensive Plan).

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

IFacts and Travel

The parties provided the Superior Court with stipulated facts, including numerous exhibits, with which to conduct its review in this case. In relating the factual background of the dispute with which we are now confronted, we shall rely on those stipulated facts.

AStipulated Facts

The defendants in this case are individuals named in their official capacities as members of the City Council of the City of Providence (collectively the City Council), as well as the I-195 Redevelopment District (the I-195 District),² and Jason Fane.³

The I-195 District owns Assessor's Plat 20, Lot 397 located at 250 Dyer Street in Providence, "also known as Parcel 42 within the I-195 Redevelopment District" (the subject parcel), as well as Assessor's Plat 20, Lot 399 located adjacent to the subject parcel, "also known as Parcel P4 within the I-195 Redevelopment District." Parcel P4 "is designated to serve as a park and green space * * *." "The Fane Organization has proposed to purchase a portion of the Subject Parcel and a portion of Parcel P4 and develop thereon a high-rise residential project not to exceed 600 feet to be called ‘Hope Point’ a/k/a ‘Fane Tower.’ "⁴

At the time of both the petition for the amendment of the zoning ordinance at issue and the preparation and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, "the Subject Parcel was zoned D-1-100" with a "maximum allowable building height under the Zoning Ordinance [of] 100 feet * * *." The design concept for Fane Tower provides for a building well in excess of the one-hundred-foot limit on height prescribed in the zoning ordinance. See infra .

Consequently, defendants Jason Fane and the I-195 District jointly petitioned for an amendment to the zoning ordinance (the Amendment). The petition proposed an amendment which would add a new D-1 district height sub-district called D-1-600, which would permit a maximum building height of 600 feet and would change the Official Zoning Map by changing the designation of the subject parcel from D-1-100 to D-1-600. It further proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance which would allow the Downtown Design Review Committee to waive certain requirements with respect to height, massing, and transition lines for the new building.⁵

At a May 15, 2018 hearing before the City Plan Commission with respect to the Amendment, the Planning Department provided a report which concluded that the Amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That report noted that the Comprehensive Plan did "not designate height districts, but [left] it up to further planning processes and eventually to the City Council to determine the size, location and regulations for subdistricts." The report found that the Comprehensive Plan supported "dense residential development" and "tall buildings in Downtown * * *." It further noted that, while the Amendment was inconsistent with the Providence Downtown and Knowledge District Plan (the Knowledge District Plan), it was nonetheless consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Consequently, it recommended that the City Plan Commission advise the City Council to that effect.⁶

However, in spite of the contents of the just-summarized report, the City Plan Commission ultimately found that the Amendment was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it found the Amendment not to be in compliance with the following portions of the Comprehensive Plan: (1) Section 11.1, which states that "new development must take into consideration natural and man-made environmental constraints and focus on preserving those aspects of our environment that we hold dear, including * * * historic character;" (2) Section 1.2 due to the fact that the design did not complement the existing scale of buildings in the area as discussed in that section; (3) Objective BE2, which "calls for new development to complement traditional character;" and (4) Objective H2, Strategy A, since the Amendment would "create housing whose costs would not be appropriate for the financial capabilities of city residents," which would not be in conformance with the language in Strategy A. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The City Plan Commission further found that the proposed building lacked "significant mixed use" and affordable housing; it also noted that the proposed building would encroach on a public park. In addition, it concluded that one hundred feet was the appropriate height zone for the subject parcel and that, if the city wished to effectuate a change in that regard, it should "undertake an orderly public process * * *."

On July 18, 2018, the Amendment was considered by "the Ordinance Committee of the Providence City Council * * *." The Ordinance Committee voted to recommend that the City Council deny the Amendment. On September 6, 2018, the City Council received that recommendation and opted to refer the matter back to the Ordinance Committee for "further review and discussion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

On October 22, 2018, the Ordinance Committee held a public hearing, which "included a presentation by the Fane team and public comment." On November 8, 2018, the Ordinance Committee voted "to recommend the Petition to the full City Council."

Subsequently, on November 15, 2018, on the occasion of the first reading, the City Council voted to approve the Amendment. On November 20, 2018, at the second reading, the City Council again voted to approve the Amendment.

Thereafter, on November 30, 2018, Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza vetoed the Amendment. However, on December 13, 2018, the City Council overrode the Mayor's veto and approved the Amendment.

The approved Amendment contained legislative findings detailing how the Amendment was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. In those findings, the City Council noted that the Comprehensive Plan declared that the relocating of I-195 presented "an unusual opportunity for an older built-out city to significantly add to its downtown[.]" (Quoting the Comprehensive Plan.) It further recognized that the subject parcel was designated as a downtown/mixed-use area in the Comprehensive Plan, concerning which area the Comprehensive Plan stated that "greater residential density and building heights could be accommodated * * *." (Quoting the Comprehensive Plan.)

The City Council then found the Amendment to be in conformance with specific portions of the Comprehensive Plan. It found the Amendment to be consistent with Objective BE3, which expressed an intention "to incorporate the best urban design principles into new development patterns to achieve a higher concentration and greater mix of housing, employment and transit options in identified areas of the City * * *." (Quoting the Comprehensive Plan.) Objective BE3 also contained a corresponding strategy "to [e]valuate and identify areas where increased height limits may be appropriate." (Internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting the Comprehensive Plan). The City Council additionally noted that the Amendment was in conformance with Objective LU9, Strategy C, which expressed an intention to "[i]dentify areas that could support taller buildings and amend land use regulations to allow for greater height in those areas." (Quoting the Comprehensive Plan.)

In addition, the City Council further found the petition to be consistent with Objective H6, which included a strategy to "[a]mend the zoning to create nodes to focus medium and high-density development * * * in transit oriented developments along high use transit lines." (Quoting the Comprehensive Plan.) The City Council also found the Amendment to be in conformance with Objective LU4 and with a corresponding strategy to "promote the development of a mixture of commercial uses that serve city-wide needs and higher density residential uses in areas designated as General Commercial/Mixed Use on Map 11.2 * * *." (Quoting the Comprehensive Plan.)

The City Council went on to find the Amendment to be "consistent with" the purposes of the Downtown District, particularly the purpose of promoting "development that encourages day and night time activities that relate to the pedestrian and promote the arts, entertainment and housing * * *." (Quoting the Comprehensive Plan.) The City Council further noted that the project...