On a 3-2 vote, the Johnston Town Council on Monday struck down a request for a continuance of discussion on a proposed zone change, causing attorney K. Joseph Shekarchi to withdraw the application entirely.
Shekarchi sought the continuance on behalf of Peter and Pamela DelPonte, who are requesting a change from R-40 to R-20 for assessor’s plat 59, lot 338. The public hearing was set to be robust, as opposing attorney John Verdecchia said there were several abutters and nearby residents waiting to comment on the matter. Shekarchi said that he was “not prepared to move forward,” and said it was his first time requesting such a continuance before the council.
Shekarchi told the Sun Rise during a phone call Tuesday morning that the change would allow the DelPontes to build 17 single-family homes rather than nine. In an exchange that was tense at times, Verdecchia explained that he filed a request for an emergency restraining order in Rhode Island Superior Court last Thursday, which was denied the morning of Monday’s meeting.
Shekarchi said during the follow-up call that Verdecchia wasn’t interested in a continuance once the ruling was handed down.
A call to Verdecchia’s office was not returned before press time. Verdecchia said during the Monday’s Zoom meeting that dozens of people had switched around schedules to be present for the hearing.
“People had to get technologically prepared,” Verdecchia said. “At the 11th hour I’m supposed to tell 100 people the meeting is off? We’re prepared, I’m prepared. I would oppose a motion to table this. I would like the council to proceed tonight.”
District 2 Councilman David Santilli argued in favor of the continuance, saying he needed more time to absorb the facts of the case before making a decision. Council President Robert Russo was the only other member to vote for a continuance.
Council Vice President Joseph Polisena Jr. and District 5 Councilman Robert Civetti, who represents the area where the land is located, argued to hear the matter Monday night. Civetti argued that Verdecchia had enough information ready to present, and that the project has a “major impact” on District 5 and the entire town. Shekarchi did caution the council, however, that any grounds for a rejection must be based on the continuance and not the merits of the zone change itself.
Polisena said he against delaying the hearing because “nothing we do tonight precludes the applicant and the neighbors from negotiating something further.”
Solicitor Dylan Conley weighed in, saying that continuances like that which Shekarchi was seeking are common.
“Due process does allow for continuances,” Conley said. “All you need to do is continue it to a date certain. It allows for everyone watching now to know the next opportunity to speak on the issue. Continuances are not uncommon on these types of things.”
Once the motion to table failed, Shekarchi swiftly pulled the application from the hearing. No public discussion was held as the item was no longer on the agenda. He said during his follow-up call that there isn’t much of a difference between the continuance and withdrawal.
“One is unilateral, withdrawing the application [means] I have the ability to re-file it at any time,” Shekarchi said. “No legal difference.”
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here