Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Court Remand topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning Board schedules Superior Court‑remanded fence‑permit appeal for March hearing
Summary
The New Shoreham Zoning Board of Review set a March hearing for an appeal remanded by the Superior Court over a building permit issued for a fence at Plat 14, Lot 31. The court remand flagged that no permit application had been filed; the board will hold a hearing and consider briefing schedules.
The New Shoreham Zoning Board of Review voted to set a hearing for March 26 on an appeal remanded by the Rhode Island Superior Court challenging a building permit issued for a fence at Plat 14, Lot 31 to Philip P. Trehanis and Jennifer A. Trehanis.
The remand stems from a court order in case WC‑2022‑0335; the appeal was filed by Bluffhead LLC, Michael Burrelli and Michelle Ann McBride. Attorney Michelle Hayes said the court identified that no application had been filed for the permit that was issued, and that the remand requires the board to hold a hearing on the appeal. "There actually was no application filed for the building permit that was issued for the fence, and that was one of the issues that was addressed by the court," Hayes said.
The board’s action schedules the appeal for a full hearing and leaves open the possibility of a briefing schedule if the parties or the board determine that written briefs are appropriate before the hearing. Chair Kate Atwater Butcher moved to put the item on the March agenda; members voted by voice to set the date.
Why it matters: the Superior Court remand converts a previous administrative decision into a contested hearing before the local zoning board. The board’s hearing will create a local administrative record and give neighbors and interested parties an opportunity to present evidence and arguments that the court found were missing or improperly decided.
Background and next steps: the transcript record shows the board and counsel agreed the matter should be scheduled rather than decided at the acceptance stage. The board set the March 26 meeting for the hearing; if parties request written briefing the board indicated it will set a schedule for that as well. The motion to set the hearing carried by voice vote; the transcript does not record individual roll‑call tallies.
The board also discussed a number of other scheduled items during the same meeting, but this entry covers only the remanded appeal and its scheduling. The full meeting minutes list other hearings set for February and March.
