Court Issues Split Decision on Solar Development

By Cynthia Drummond for BRVCA

PROVIDENCE – The Rhode Island Supreme Court has issued a decision in the controversial Beaver River solar development and it is not good news for the project’s opponents.

With Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg retiring and not hearing the case, the four remaining justices issued a 2-2, or split decision on the challenge to the lower court’s decision allowing the project to proceed.

What Does This Mean?

A split decision means that the ruling of the lower court will stand. However, there is an avenue to challenge the ruling, which would involve requesting a new hearing before a full, five-member Supreme Court.

Either party can request a “re-argument,” in which one of the retired Justices could be called back to hear the case, or a new Justice would be seated, bringing the number of Justices to five.

The Town of Richmond and property owner John Peixinho have invested funds and time challenging the Superior Court decision. The two parties are considering requesting a re-argument, which must be filed by May 11.

A Not-so-Brief History of the Project

The solar array is located on Beaver River Road, which, in 2021, was added to the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places. The Beaver River is also part of the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Neither of those national designations prevented the developer, GD Beaver River LLC, from moving ahead with the project.

Peixinho, who purchased and restored the abutting historic Samuel Clark farm on Lewiston Avenue, has fought to protect the Beaver River Valley from industrial solar development. The farm includes one of the oldest timber frame houses in Rhode Island and is also on the National Register of Historic Places.

Widely opposed in the town, the solar project has been challenged for more than eight years.

Property owner William Stamp and GD Beaver River LLC, first applied for a special use permit to build the project at 172 Beaver River Road, in 2018.

The zoning official at the time, Russel “Bo” Brown, denied the application, because the project did not meet a town requirement that solar arrays be no more than two miles from a utility substation.

The application was also denied by the Planning Board, because the proposed facility would not be consistent with provisions in the town’s comprehensive plan that protect the town’s rural landscapes and cultural and historic heritage.

GD Beaver River appealed the Zoning Board decision to Rhode Island Superior Court, which remanded the case to

the Zoning Board. When the Zoning Board denied the application a second time, the developers appealed once more to Superior Court, and in 2023, they won. Justice Sarah Taft-Carter ruled that the Zoning Board’s reasons for denying the application were “unsupported” and directed the town to immediately issue the special use permit.

Even as the project was being built, Peixinho and the Town of Richmond asked the Supreme Court to reexamine and overturn the Superior Court decision directing the Richmond Zoning Board to issue the special use permit.

In June, 2023, Peixinho, represented by attorney Tom Dickinson, and Karen Ellsworth, the Richmond Town Solicitor at the time, each submitted a petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which asked the Supreme Court to review the lower court decision. The Supreme Court granted the writs in April 2024 and heard the oral arguments on March 5, 2026.

The oral arguments were based on the reasons cited by the town for denying the special use permit: the distance from the facility to the electrical substation and the compatibility of an industrial-scale facility with the town’s comprehensive plan.

Reaction to the Decision

The split decision was not unanticipated, and Peixinho said he was prepared to petition the court for a hearing before the full, five-member Supreme Court.

“This solar facility didn’t divide the community – everyone was against it,” he said. “We owe it to Richmond to see this through another hearing.”

Peixinho will continue to be represented by Thomas Dickinson.

“I am grateful to Attorney Dickinson for his excellent work thus far and that he has agreed to work on this case,” he said. “It was unfortunate that there was not a full complement of Justices on the bench at the time of the first hearing. This is too important a decision for our community. We can’t allow it to remain unresolved because of an attendance issue. I’m glad that the law affords ground for resolution.”

Peixinho said he was hoping that the town would also request a second hearing.

Town Council Vice President Mark Reynolds explained that the Town Council would consider the matter at an Executive Session following the council meeting on May 5.

“The discussion will be whether [to submit] the petition for a re-argument before the full court before five Justices, so there wouldn’t be a tie, and obviously, the council will make a decision how to move forward,” he said.

Reynolds supports the request to re-argue the case.

“I for one think we should,” he said. “We have two Justices who agree with our position. … We’ve come this far. We’ve invested money in this appeal and you know, we’ve had the success in getting the petitions for [writ of certiorari] cert granted so the [Supreme] Court would hear the case, and

now we’ve got two Justices who side with us, so yeah, it makes sense to take the next step.”

The council will announce its decision on whether t move forward in the case following the Executive Session on Tuesday.