NORTH SMITHFIELD – A state Superior Court judge has ordered that the town must pay legal fees for an applicant whose proposal before the North Smithfield Zoning Board was inappropriately denied.
Filing litigation as Tech Realty, LLC, Material Sampling Technology has won $37,239 to pay attorneys’ fees and other costs associated with denial of an application to build a 23,600-square-foot warehouse on a currently vacant property on Central Street. Represented by Attorneys Joelle Rocha and Andrew Blais, the business filed a motion for the award under the Equal Access to Justice Act, arguing that the Zoning Board’s actions in the proceedings were not substantially justified.
The case involved a 2022 vote to deny MST’s application to build the structure – an expansion of the precious metal reclamation business’s current operations on an abutting property at 800 Central St. – based on the project’s failure to meet the town’s maximum setback requirement. In a 2-2 vote in which Zoner Vincent Marcantonio abstained, the board denied the request for relief of the town’s 70 foot “maximum setback requirement.”
Tech Realty appealed the decision and the Zoning Board later conceded to the court that the vote denying the application was illegal because only four members voted on it. And in April, the court vacated the zoners decision based on the fact that Rhode Island’s Zoning Enabling Act, which gives such local zoning boards their authority, only allows municipalities to set minimum setback requirements, not maximum setbacks.
In the latest litigation, Tech Realty filed for a motion for award of attorneys fees and litigation costs, citing an act made to provide individuals and small businesses the ability to challenge “arbitrary and capricious,” decisions from state and municipal agencies. The plaintiff requested $6,237 in costs associated with the hearing before the Zoning Board and filing its appeal to the court, and $30,495 in attorneys’ fees, representing 203.3 total hours of work billed at a rate of $150-per-hour.
Tech Realty’s attorneys also tried to recoup “enhanced fees,” from the town, arguing that the business was entitled to an additional $9,162 because the Zoning Board acted in bad faith when it objected to a motion to expedite the case, considering that zoners later conceded one of the two legal issues.
The town, represented by Attorneys Timothy Robenhymer and Stephen Archambault, argued that an action in Superior Court is not an adjudicatory proceeding under the act, citing a case in which relief was not granted following a decision issued by a building official. That case, however, relied on the fact that court was not reviewing a decision made by an agency, as required by the act. Therefore, the judge noted in the latest Superior Court ruling on Monday, Oct. 11, North Smithfield’s argument was “misplaced.”
The court granted Tech Realty’s request for “reasonable litigation expenses,” totaling $37,329 but denied the second request for enhanced fees of $9,162.
I believe he represented Pezza and now works for our law team??? This is not going away- and MST has no regard for our water. Did they have an environmental impact statement which IS required when a business is over our aquifer. They pulled a fast one with our town in 2020. They knew that piece of property would never have been allowed without the zoning boards oversight of Section 6.19. This would have allowed the residents to speak, but again, that didn’t happen. The Zoning Board tried to do the right thing, but I guess the judge isn’t environmentally friendly.
Apparently our town’s legal presentative not only has a potential conflict of interest with his past representation of the Quarry, but he didn’t help us in this case one bit. How did we get connected with that guy?
Blind…another company who could care less about our water.