BURRILLVILLE – A Superior Court judge has remanded the question of whether or not synthetic turf can be installed at Burrillville High School’s Gledhill Field back to the town’s Planning Board, specifying that planners must this time make Findings of Fact.
The decision was issued on Tuesday, Sept. 30, but was interpreted differently by two sides in the lawsuit, with both claiming victory.
NRI NOW waited to obtain a copy of the ruling, which first became available on Thursday, Oct. 9, prior to reporting on the outcome of the litigation.
“The Burrillville Planning Board shall conduct publicly noticed remand hearing to make findings of fact and decide the matter based on the existing record, no new evidence will be presented to the Planning Board, and no new testimony is required,” wrote Associate Justice Jeffrey Lanphear.
It’s a decision directing the next phase in a battle between opponents of the project, who fear potential for environmental impact, and supporters, who hope to see the work completed for Bronco athletes.
Planners denied an application by the town and the school department to complete the project – set to include bleachers, lighting, a concession stand, a ticket booth, restrooms, a press box, a field house and a viewing area – in a 5-2 vote at a hearing in April.
The meeting, however, came to an abrupt end following the ruling. Boards are procedurally required to read through certain language on such votes, but interruptions at the hearing seemed to rush the process.
NRI NOW was present at the Planning Board hearing and noted in an article that followed that “shouting from turf field opponents sometimes interrupted the proceedings.”
The observation was disputed by at least one reader, who contacted us after publication to note she felt the opponents were portrayed unfairly.
Regardless of the reason, the planners’ actions in April ultimately led Town Planner Ray Goff to note “none stated” in a field for Findings of Fact on the board’s official legal ruling.
Opponents, in turn, have questioned Goff’s neutrality as an employee of the town present in executive sessions on the matter as part of his role.
The town appealed the planning denial in the Superior Court suit filed in May, and in July, the court approved a request by the Burrillville Grassroots Coalition, a nonprofit made up of nearly a dozen resident activists, to intervene in the case.
Represented by Anthony DeSisto Law Associates, the town asked the court to remand the project back to the board, while the BGC filed a motion to dismiss the case through their attorney, Marisa Desautel.
While both parties agree the dismissal request was clearly denied, it seems the two sides had different interpretations of the second ruling from the court proceedings.
Town Council President Donald Fox announced victory on social media last week.
“The State’s Land Use Court today remanded the initial Burrillville Planning Board decision on the artificial turf field back to the Planning Board for a proper decision and findings of fact,” wrote Fox. “Unfortunately, they will have wasted over $400,000 of our money.”
“An uneducated, ill informed, fear mongering campaign not based on fact, but instead on politics has cost us all,” he added. They claimed the field isn’t safe and that was proven wrong.”
Contacted last week, BGC Secretary Pia Mueller noted she was at the court hearing when the decision was rendered.
“It was specified that it is not going back for a new vote on the matter, but rather to amend the ‘finding of facts’, which were missing from the written document that was presented to the judge,” said Mueller. “The Planning Board already voted to reject the application, and that vote stands. The judge’s ruling does not undo the rejection, it just forces the town to put on paper what was already decided and the reasons for that decision.”
Asked Thursday if the group had changed their position on the matter after seeing the wording in the official court decision, Mueller said the judge’s order remands the case to the Planning Board for clarification of its findings of facts based on the existing record.
“That means no new evidence, no new testimony, and no reopening of the hearing,” said Mueller. “What’s being asked for now is a more detailed written explanation of why they reached that decision, not a new vote or reversal. The BGC’s position remains that the Planning Board acted appropriately, and our focus is on ensuring that the remand process follows both the court’s directive and the principle of transparent, lawful governance.”
Goff could not immediately be reached to clarify if planners will be allowed to take a new vote on the matter.
Editor’s note: After publication of the above article, the town posted an agenda for a Planning Board meeting to reconsider the project. A special meeting will be held on Monday, Oct. 27 at Burrillville High School at 425 East Ave. starting at 7 p.m.
