Town of Exeter, by and through its Solicitor, James P. Marusak v. State of Rhode Island Town of Richmond, Rhode Island v. State of Rhode Island

Syllabus

The Town of Exeter and the Town of Richmond appealed from a judgment denying the towns' motion for summary judgment and granting the state's cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the towns argued that the trial justice erred in finding that the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 22.2 of title 45, provides the proper procedure to resolve zoning disputes between the state and municipalities. The towns asserted that the state, in its capacity as a developer of land, should be required to submit to local zoning procedures and that the test set forth in the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act was not intended to replace the balancing-of-interests test set forth in Blackstone Park Improvement Association v. State Board of Standards and Appeals, 448 A.2d 1233 (R.I. 1982). The Supreme Court held that where there is a conflict between the state's proposed development and local land-use and zoning regulations, the state agency must first bring its project before the State Planning Council to pass upon the issue of compliance with the municipality's comprehensive plan. The Court further held that, under the unique facts of this case, the state must bring the proposed project before the State Planning Council to pass upon the issue of compliance with both towns' comprehensive plans. The Court went on to hold that, if the State Planning Council approves the project, the state must then apply to the municipality's zoning board of review for zoning relief and act in conformity with the procedures set forth in the Zoning Enabling Act. Finally, the Court held that if the parties remain in disagreement, an aggrieved party may file suit in the Superior Court, which will utilize the record from both the State Planning Council and the municipality's zoning board of review and apply Blackstone Park's balancing-of-interests test to resolve the matter. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Superior Court and rem