Peter Scotti & Associates, Inc. v. Seth Yurdin, in his official capacity as a Member of the City Council of the City of Providence

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, Peter Scotti & Associates, Inc. and Building Bridges Providence, sought review by the Supreme Court of a December 14, 2020 judgment of the Providence County Superior Court denying and dismissing all claims in the plaintiffs' second amended complaint. That judgment followed a decision of the Superior Court that there was no legal basis under G.L. 1956 § 45-24-71 for invalidating the zoning amendment at issue, which would allow the construction of a new high-rise building in downtown Providence. The plaintiffs contended before the Supreme Court that \legislative deference should not apply to a § 45-24-71 challenge\ and that the zoning amendment at issue is inconsistent with \Providence Tomorrow: The Comprehensive Plan\ (the Comprehensive Plan).<br><br>The Supreme Court initially opined that the correct avenue for review in this case would be by petition for a writ of certiorari, but it then decided to treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari and grant the petition. The Court went on to hold that the hearing justice did not err in assigning a rebuttable presumption of validity to the zoning amendment at issue when conducting a review pursuant to § 45-24-71. The Court also held that it was unable to say that the hearing justice committed an error of law or was without the support of legally competent evidence when he concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden to rebut the presumption that the zoning amendment at issue was valid by proving that the amendment was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.