The city’s Planning Commission violated state open meeting law by excluding members of the public during a visit to the location of a proposed solar power installation late last year, the attorney general’s office has found, although it has also concluded that no legal action is necessary in relation to the matter.

The finding stems from a complaint filed by Douglas Doe over the commission’s Dec. 8, 2018, visit to the site of the proposed Natick Avenue solar installation. The 8.1-megawatt project, being developed by Southern Sky Renewable Energy RI LLC, received conditional master plan approval from the commission in February of this year.

According to Doe’s complaint, a small vehicle was provided to transport members of the commission and other attendees around the site of the proposed solar installation.

The attorney general’s office, citing the minutes of the site visit, indicates the vehicle used was a 12-passenger van, and that in addition to planning staff and commission members, the site’s owner and representatives of the solar project’s applicant were in attendance.

The vehicle, according to the complaint, was not large enough to accommodate members of the public, who were as a result unable to interact with commissioners and raise concerns during the site visit.

The complaint further alleges that members of the public “were told to wait in the parking lot and were not allowed to follow the coach vehicle.”

In a response cited by the attorney general’s office, Cranston City Solicitor Christopher Rawson asserted that the site visit “was not a continuation of a public hearing” on the proposed solar installation.

The visit, according to Rawson’s response, was designed purely to allow for planning staff and commissioners to walk the site, and included no deliberations, discussions or votes. Members of the public were not invited to separately wander or drive on the property “due to liability concerns,” according to the response.

The response additionally states that “more people came to the scheduled visit than anticipated, so the bus had to make two full tours of the property.”

The attorney general’s office, however, found that members of the commission – with a quorum in attendance – did engage in discussions and ask questions during the site visit.

“Despite Solicitor Rawson’s contention that ‘[a]t no time during any tour were there deliberations, group discussions, [or] the rendering of any collective decisions,’ the minutes clearly document that ‘[t]here was a discussion about the appropriate buffering in regards to the existing conditions,’ and ‘[t]he commission discussed the gas easement in relation to potential blasting,’” the attorney general’s finding reads.

It continues: “The minutes reveal that at one point ‘[t]he commission wanted to see the edge of the lease area … got out of the van’ and engaged in a discussion about a proposed future roadway and downward slope away from the residences to the north. Additionally, the commission did not provide affidavits from the commission members in attendance at the site visit to support its contention that no ‘deliberations, group discussions, the rendering of any collective decisions’ occurred.”

The finding from the attorney general’s office further states that Rawson’s response “is of limited value to our investigation” because he is not mentioned in the minutes as having attended the site visit and “did not state that he attended the site visit or provide any basis for his knowledge regarding the events of the site visit.”

Despite the disparity and the determination that a violation occurred, the attorney general’s office found that the “evidence suggests that this violation was the product of evolving circumstances and developments related to the site visit, rather than a willful or knowing intent to exclude the public from a meeting.”

“Although the commission should have planned better for the site visit and taken measures to ensure that a meeting did not occur outside the public purview, we also recognize that a site visit of a multi-acre tract of land presented a unique circumstance,” the finding reads. “We also note that the commission did adhere to other requirements for a public meeting, including providing notice and recording minutes of the site visit. Additionally, the commission does not have any recent prior violations. We also do not think that injunctive relief is appropriate given that it is undisputed and documented in the meeting minutes that no action and/or vote was taken during the site visit.”

A footnote in the finding from the attorney general’s office also notes that the complaint’s allegation that members of the public were denied the ability to “raise their concerns” to commission members during the site visit “does not violate” the Open Meetings Act, which allows for public bodies to limit comment during open sessions.