Committee on Ordinances - Public Hearing | June 24th, 2026

Mic check. Test on two. This is the handheld mic. Mic check. Test one two.

This is the gooseneck podium mic. I check test one two, testing one two.

Good evening. We will be starting shortly. So if you have not and you're here to, testify on an item, please go right ahead and sign up on the item that you're here to, testify on. Thank you. But we will be starting shortly.

Alright. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to committee and ordinance. I'm councilman Pedro Espinal. Madam clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chairman Espinal?

Present.

Vice chairwoman Peterson? Present. Councilwoman Harris?

Present.

Councilman Vargas? Councilor Royas is absent. You have four present, one absent. You have a quorum.

Thank you so much. Madam clerk, item number one, please.

Item one, petition from John j Garahee Squire. John j Garahee Law LLC two zero eight eight Broad Street, Cranston, Rhode Island zero two nine zero five dated 02/10/2026 requesting a zone change for the property located on assessor's Plot 115, Plot 626349 Killingley Street from R 1 to R 3.

Thank you very much. I'd like to turn a motion to enter into the record CPC the letter from CPC. So moved. Made by councilor Peterson, second by councilor Mervargas. All in favor, aye.

Aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. Thank you. And do we have anybody here? Mister Azer, would you like to present on this first?

And then we'll hear from the attorney. And while I do that, please give me the list of the people that signed up to speak on this item. Mister Azar, good evening.

Good evening, mister chair, members of the committee. I'm Robert Azar. I'm the deputy director of the Department of Planning and Development. And this particular petition is for a piece of property on Killingly Street. It's currently zoned R 1.

It's a vacant lot. It is over it's about 8,600 square feet in size. It's, very much buildable. Currently, the back portion of this lot is in the C 3 zone. But this sits between different zoning categories.

R 3 is across the street, and C 3 is directly adjacent to and behind the lot. And under these circumstances, the comprehensive plan is is says that property when it's on the border of zones like this is eligible for a change in zone. In this case, the applicant seeks to go to R 33 family residential. That would be certainly allowed by the comprehensive plan. It would just involve dragging the r three zone line across the street to encompass this lot.

This would enable the development of a three family house, and that, according to the applicant, is the intention here. So the City Plan Commission considered this, and they voted unanimously to support this petition.

Thank you, mister Hayes. Are there any questions from my committee members? Thank you, Bob. Mister John Garahi?

Good evening, mister chairman, members of the committee. I'm John Garahee on behalf of the applicant. I think mister Azai did an excellent job of explaining this proposal. It's really located at a at a a nexus between several, commercial zones with the commercial zone in the back, Citizens Bank. I'm right abutting it in our three zones across the street.

Mister chairman, I think, you know, we where it's appropriate to have higher densities, it should be done. I think this is an entirely appropriate area to have an r three zoned, a high you know, Killingly Street, Hartford Avenue, entirely appropriate for this to be more housing than less. Any questions? Happy to address them. Any question from committee members?

Hey, Renan. Thank you, mister Garhee. Chairman.

Believe it's David Gallegos or Daniel.

Hello. How are you doing today? Good evening. My name is David Gallegos. I live on 343 Killingley Street.

I'm asking that you that you deny the rezoning of 343 Killingley Street from r 1 R 3. It's inconsistent with the, comprehend comprehensive plan, which designates our neighborhood low density residential for one to two family. R 3 allows three family. It's spot zoning. Every other lot on this block is R 1, singling out one lot for upzoning has been overturned by Rhode Island courts.

Killing Lee can't handle parking. We don't have driveways or six cars. Killing Lee already is narrow as it is, especially in that area. There's high traffic. As you know, the bank is there, which brings in more traffic, putting, R 3 allowing a three family unit.

It's gonna allow that, that many more cars. It's about maybe 50 feet to a 100 feet before you get to a streetlight. And, again, it's, it's gonna be it's gonna increase the, the flow of traffic there. So I ask that you deny this.

You mentioned the comprehensive plan. You realize that under the new comprehensive plan, which is the next, ten years, there is no r two. There is no resident to two family that automatically became, r three. So the jump is from r one to r three because there is no two. Okay.

And and that is done in order to increase density.

And so this is also going to allow for others to, to apply for that rezoning. So is that going to be approved in the future?

Oh, absolutely. Bob, this will be in a case by case basis. Right? This is not, exactly. This only pertains to this case specifically, which is, eighty hundred, 8,600 square feet Okay.

Which is a very big lot.

So if I have a lot that's also 8,600 square feet, I'm I'm gonna

be allowed to, rezone my r one? You you would be entitled to the same thing that they're doing. You'd be able to come here to the zoning board to us, and, we'll evaluate that case. And if that's appropriate, it

not a problem.

Okay. And what about the, low density zoning? Area is, low

density? Well, you know, you you you you have single family areas, but you do have certain lots that are, like especially this one here, which is, 8,600. Right. And and the gentleman's asking to build a three family in order to, provide more housing.

Okay. So now from what I understand is, just because it's, 8,600, square feet, doesn't really determine that it's allowed to build a, r three unit there.

If there's enough land, they have the right to petition, and then we make a decision on it.

So enter a petition, you're saying? I'm sorry? Did you say enter a petition?

No. No. I I mean, what was your question?

So although it's a, from my understanding, even though it's a, 8,600 square lot, because it's a low density, it doesn't necessarily say that you cannot, build a r three unit on there because of it being low density.

That's why it's presented to the CPC to the zoning department so that they can explore this. They can look into it and see whether that is adequate or not. So that so they they they look at the entire map, and they compare it to what is adjacent to, and they conclude whether that can be achieved or not. So that's why it's per case basis.

Okay. Well, thank you.

Alright. Thank you.

Okay. With that said, only to the motion to close the public hearing on item number one. So move. Made by council member Vargas. Second by council member Peterson.

All in favor, aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. And after hearing all testimony and following the direction from the zoning CPC department, I'll entertain a motion to approve. Second. By councilor Peterson, second by councilor Mabargas.

All in favor, aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you. Item number one is approved.

Thanks. Madam clerk, item number two.

Item two, petition from Dylan Conley Esquire, Rhode Island, Lyon, Youth Law of 123 Dyer Street, Suite 3 B, Providence, Rhode Rhode Island 02903 requesting an amendment to the official zoning ordinance of the city of province by adding a new subsection to the text of two zero zero five section f billboard removal invented.

Thank you. We have a petition from the we have a letter asking to decide and be continued from the petitioner. So I will entertain a motion to enter into the record letters of continuance. Made by councilor Peterson, second by councilor Mabargas on a favor, aye. Opposed, the ayes have it.

And I'll entertain a motion to continue item number two to a date that is certain to September 14 at 05:30. So moved. Made by councilwoman Peterson, second by councilman Vargas. All in favor, aye. Opposed, the aye seven.

Item number two is continued. Thank you. Madam clerk, item number three.

Item three, petition from Jeffrey Mark Ode, owner of j c one three one Realty LLC and president of EW Ode and Sons Inc. Requesting to change the official zoning map of the city of Providence by changing the zoning district from various properties from m dash m u to m one and to change the language in section twelve zero two point h of the zoning ordinance to add subsection four to read as follows. A storage container may be used for permanent storage. A storage container should not be stuck on the site.

Thank you. We have a letter from the CPC, so I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record letter from the CPC. Second. By councilor Peterson, second by councilor Baragat. All in favor, aye.

Aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. I'll also entertain a motion to enter into the record letters of testimonies on this item. K. Made by councilor Peterson, second by councilor Vargas.

All in favor, aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. Mister Bob, are you ready for this? Of course.

Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you,

mister Azar. This, petition is to change the zoning of several lots that are all owned by the petitioner from MMU 75 to M 1. And there's a slight difference between MMU 75 and M 1 in the zoning ordinance. MMU 75 is a zone, probably the most flexible zone that we have in the city. It allows for industrial uses, it allows for commercial uses, and it allows for residential uses.

M 1 is more of a strictly M 1 zone, industrial zone that does not allow for residential uses. And it also allows for certain uses that are a little bit more intensive in nature than MMU 75. In particular, M1 allows for outdoor storage and it allows for contractor storage yard. That is what is happening on much of the property that's owned by the petitioner. They are a contractor and they have a lot of equipment and supplies that they store on their various pieces of property.

And in some cases, there are lots that have been preexisting and are grandfathered for this use. In other cases, they are not. So what they are attempting to do here is to get the city to change the zoning so that all of their property will will be conforming to the zoning ordinance. Furthermore, they're asking for a change of the ordinance such that with contractor storage yards, which is typically outdoor storage or storage within a building, they're asking for the ordinance to be changed such that the storage could also take place in portable containers like shipping containers. And what this would allow is for equipment and supplies that that may not be appropriate to be stored outside within a structure so that it wouldn't be subject to exposure to the elements.

So the city plan commission reviewed this and they found that in accordance with the comprehensive plan, this is a mixed use district that can accommodate both m 1 and MMU zoning. So the comprehensive plan would allow you to make the zoning change to the map. They also found that the additional change in the language to allow for storage within containers on-site would be appropriate as well, given that it could help to organize the site a little bit better and take things that are sitting on the ground and put them inside of a structure. The one caveat that they added here was that they felt that the permanent outdoor storage, that the use of storage containers should be subject to a special use permit With demonstrated conformance with section 12 o two H. Of the ordinance pertaining to the development of contractor storage yards.

I want to talk about that for a minute because this is a rare occasion where I disagree with the city plan commissions recommended condition here. Outdoor storage yards, the requirement is that they be fenced and and landscaped around the perimeter so that the the storage is not, you know, obvious or visible from from the street. That's gonna be a requirement regardless of whether you have to get a special use permit or not. So in order for them to to legalize this storage, they're gonna have to do this. That would be subject to approval by the zoning official and an inspection by a zoning inspector.

In my opinion, I think it would be an unnecessary additional hoop for them to go through to have to go to the zoning board to get a special use permit. You have the authority over over zoning. You can listen to the applicant. You can you can question the applicant about what they intend to do. In my opinion, that should suffice to to be supportive of this zoning change.

So I don't believe that that condition to require a special use permit is necessary. But in any event, the commission does recommend that you advance this petition because it's in the best interest of of good planning and consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you. You're welcome. Any questions from the committee? Yes. I do.

Councilor Peterson?

Sorry. Forgive me. Is there any sort of, and thank you for that information, Deputy director. Do we have any precedent already of this specific type of storage out on like is there are we setting a precedent here or is this like first time we've ever done this this exact way?

For for for shipping containers to be used as storage. So land, yeah. I'll start by saying, if you bear with me just a second, I'll start by saying that this is not something that we wanna see everywhere. And in fact, there is language in the zoning ordinance that prohibits shipping containers in residential zones. We had seen there was one sort of notorious case where somebody was using a shipping container in their in their in their yard in the Elmhurst neighborhood to to store who knows what, but it was wholly inappropriate.

So we specifically say that shipping containers are not permitted in residential zones. And then I'm trying to I don't know, just bear with me a quick second. Because I think we do speak to storage containers. Yeah. We we do allow for for temporary outdoor storage containers.

This is typically say that somebody is has construction project and they wanna move things out of out of a building and store it temporarily, they're allowed to do that. You know, these if you're moving and you hire a company to bring a container, put it in your driveway, you move everything into it, it takes a couple of weeks and then they take it away. That's the kind of thing that we do allow and we even allow that in residential zones. But we don't specifically allow for permanent storage containers within any zone. And I would argue that that's probably I I think that we're probably being too restrictive when it comes to storage containers because I think they can serve a use.

And especially in heavy commercial or industrial zones, I think it it rather than requiring someone to build a building to store things, a a container like this could be an economical way to to to, you know, organize equipment, material, things that don't need to be inside of a of a air conditioned building, and so forth. So this would be this would allow for something that that we hadn't allowed for previously. But there would be a condition that they can't be stacked on the site. We've seen that and we've cited that in the past. But, you know, if they're well organized, if they're properly fenced and the lot is properly landscaped, think it's a I think it's it's shouldn't be a problem.

Okay.

Thank you. And I appreciate that context. My concern is more about it becoming common practice where we have a need for continued expansion continued building and things like that that we then people start or whoever might own that might start utilizing that as storage. We certainly don't want to create an opportunity for that, which I think perhaps and I wasn't at the CPC meeting to be able to understand, but maybe that's the reason why the special use permit would be more feasible?

Yeah. So just just for a little bit more context, contractor storage yard currently is only permitted by right in the W3, M1, and M2 zones. So the heaviest of the industrial zones. It's already a special use permit in the C three zone. So even to establish a contractor storage yard regardless of whether it would have.

Outdoor storage within a container. You you would require a special use permit there so. So this is, you know, these are the W 3, M 1, and M 2 zones, W 3 and M 2, a 100%, are very much separate from kind of residential neighborhoods. These are these zones only exist East of the highway between the highway and and the Providence River. M 1 exists elsewhere in the city, but it's generally separate from residential areas.

These are industrial areas where there are industrial operations happening. It would not be unusual to see, for example, tractor trailers parked on a site in an M 1 zone. You go to Capco Steel, for example, and they have tractor trailers all over their site. And in fact, they drop the the the containers on the ground. I mean, they're already they're already doing it, frankly.

Bob, just a quick question. Counselor. Varga. Just a second. So within the MU, you you could build residential.

Right? In the MMU. Yes. MMU. Yes.

So so there are other lots out there surrounding this building. I believe one street over or one street on the other side that are vacant empty lots.

Yes. So your point is well taken that that in this particular area where the petitioner is requesting this change to M 1. Those lots are currently MMU. And in this area, you do have a mix of industrial and housing. So it's a it's a it's a fair point.

And it's not unusual in Providence to have areas of MMU and M1 kind of interspersed. What I would, so you know, I think I think what you're saying sort of counters what I had originally said, which is that M 1 tends to be separate from residential areas. I should clarify and say separate from residential zones. There are residences and there are residential areas within MMU. However, those houses already exist in the midst of commercial and industrial operations.

So I think think there's really there's really two parts of this of this petition that you you considering and you should think about them separately but also together. The first part is is whether you wanna support the actual map change. And then the second part is whether you wanna support the use of shipping containers as as storage devices within contractor storage yards. You know, I would argue that storing things inside of of a structure that's maybe eight or 10 feet tall as opposed to requiring the the erection of a building for indoor storage is not a bad thing in a zone like this.

Councilman Vargas?

Thank you. What about this this bay is so we're talking about 18 properties.

Correct. That's how many, the petitioner owns in this area.

So the petitioner owns all these 18 properties, and all single ones, he wants to change it to m one?

That's right.

And he's going to be putting one container in each property?

I think that I believe the petitioner is here. You could you could certainly ask them.

Because the question here is that they wanna change it to the Sony owners to to have containers by which property will hold the containers. That's the question. And what he's going to be doing with the with the rest of the properties?

Well, I think that would be

a good question to It's it's it's a good it's a great package coming to the here asking for one shot for all of them. And Bay Street is by Eddy Street. Right? It's next to the water? What about do you know where it is?

It's, it's between it's between Eddy Street. This area is between Eddy Street and Interstate 95.

By the hospital?

Yeah. Well, it's it's across the street across Eddie Street and South of the hospital. It's South Of Public Street. About a block block South Of Public Street.

I'm having a hard time to to put all of them together because they are separate streets.

Yeah. You can see there is a there is a map attached to the petition where the the properties are outlined.

Yes. We're looking

at see where they are. And I and I think that, you know, it bears it bears mentioning that this is a this is a Providence based business. They're a a I believe they're an electrical contractor. They're a commercial contractor. And I'm assuming that over the years, as they have expanded, they have acquired lots in the vicinity of their existing properties.

And and they have, you know, they have a lot of needs to to support this business. But again, I think the the petitioner would be better suited to to answer the specifics of what they intend to do.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. And You're welcome. With that, I'll call mister Jax Oddette.

Hello,

everybody. Hello. Good evening.

So I'm Jack Saudette, fourth generation to my family's business here in Providence. We're an electrical contracting company celebrating our sixtieth year this year. My father and I are here today to express the importance of this zone change and the change in the zoning ordinance to allow for storage containers. Storage containers have been a vital use of our operation for storing tools, equipment, and project materials, and we have been doing so since 1966. EW Audette and Sons is a local business who has continued to employ over 60 people, which many of them actually live in the city of Providence.

The removal of our storage containers will be detrimental to my family's business. And that's all. To answer his question about actually storage containers being on every lot, Excluding the lots with buildings, it would be a majority of them, yes.

Councilor Bartagos, do you have any questions? Yes. Thank you for coming and testify. The little confused I have is that we're talking about 80 properties. Right?

So one property, I'm sure the the building is 200 O'Knell Cornell Street. Where's the building located?

All the buildings are located on Bay Street.

All those or in Bay Street. So all the buildings? Correct. So we have 17 buildings?

No. How many buildings? One, two, three, four buildings. Five buildings, actually.

Five buildings. So you're using five lots, one lot per building?

Well, actually, one building could be three lots.

Three. Okay.

So it's it doesn't it's not like that.

And to put the storage containers, you're looking to use every single lot or or next to the buildings?

Yeah. I would every single lot if we wanted to. Yes. And it's not like we would start doing it. It's already been in motion for the last sixty years.

So nothing would be changing. It would just be asking for permission to do what we've been doing. We didn't really know we were breaking the zoning ordinance.

Councilman? Yari?

No. I'm I'm I'm okay. The the I'm trying to picture the petition is to to change to m one and to have containers in each lot. Let me let me refresh my mind. Go ahead, sir.

Yeah. Go ahead.

I I mean I mean, I I guess the, what makes it very interesting is that you're not asking for one or two. You're asking for 18 all at once. Well and what that would enable you to do is to start using shipping containers. So the question perhaps that the councilman has is that alright. So how many per lot?

What would the area look like? Also taking into concern and into consideration the concern from the neighbors. We also gotten letters about this. So, it it just got us thinking about it first. You know?

Well, the concern of the neighbors would be looking at their property and also noticing they have storage containers as well. So

Can I? Sure. Go

ahead. For example, in pastry, right, you have 8356 is the 1123456 in one line. I don't see a problem in that one because you own all those lots. But when I go into Sharon Sharon Sherburn? Sherburn Street, you have another two lots.

Now we have neighbors or residents around that one that we don't know how how they react. And then we go to the other street. You got another two here by like, which is the number here. The street doesn't show up the street here. But the question is, like, I'm okay with the line on Bay Street because you own you own the whole street.

That's fine. It's your property. Nobody you're not going to be buying nobody. But they're taking the opportunity to come here and have 18 lots or 18 properties to change at once is a concern.

Perhaps. On Sherburne Street, that's the last lot on the right. So Yeah. The homes drive by the hospital, and then they're at their home. You'd have to drive past your home, go down to our property, see a storage container.

So that's your concern with the neighbor there. It's a dead end. It borders the highway.

The dead end? Yep. Which one is that one?

So the Highway Sherburn. Sherburn? The highway intersects all the streets there. The main one being Bay Street, Sherburn, and O'Connell.

Okay. It doesn't drain. I don't don't see an issue. Questions on the containers. Do you are you going to have a a concrete base to put a container on top or you just drop in the dirt?

The permanent ones are on granite slab or concrete. Yes. Sorry? The permanent ones that are staying there are on concrete slab or granite. There may be some that are sit there for a week, and then they're picked up and go out to a job site.

Because we're having issue with rats, so the rats will be digging into that if you put it down the dirt. That's what it is.

I haven't seen any, but it's Providence, so I'm sure they're there. Thank

you. Sure. Any further questions? Councilor Harris? Fourth.

Thank

you. Oh, yeah. I thought say, naturally.

Well, that makes a difference. Congratulations

on your sixtieth anniversary and your fourth generation of being a part of the business. What has been happening with the storage? You may have said it, and it's it may pass in the line. What has been happening with the storage within the sixty years? Do you take them out?

Do you the storage containers?

What's your question? What

has happened over the sixty years with the storage containers that you're using? You said that you've been using them for about sixty years?

So they just sit permanently and store them with material. And then when some material needs to go to job site, they get loaded up on a truck. The storage container stays. The material comes out, and then it gets shipped off. So it's ideally, it's a less expensive storage for weatherproof storage and protection against theft or vandalism.

Mhmm. And I I had a couple other questions, but they seem to ask, you know, ask the questions like, you know, how many storage bins there are, and you mentioned that and that one would be on each and every property. So appreciate that for the answer. I also had and I appreciate this as well is the fact that, this sort of would be set and present according to what we've heard of of of companies that probably would come down the road and use use as a statue to continue this. I guess my biggest concern is your neighbors.

You know, a lot of things in South Providence just happens. You already was existing. You grand yeah. Obviously, you're grandfathered in, been there for years and years. So I would like to understand better what else could be done other than making a decision tonight based on what I've heard, and some of the stuff is new.

I did not come to your property in this moment. I wanna take a moment to give a recognition to our policy person, Aaron Garten, who showed up. I was supposed to be meeting with you as well, but Aaron did show up and was able to give us the information we needed to move forward. So I appreciate that. I just wanna take that minute to give him a shout for doing that.

I have not visited a property. I don't even know the energy of the neighbors, but I do know we have some letters from neighbors and would like to try to understand it better. So at this time, mister chair, I'd like to propose that we continue this matter to understand it better.

Thank you, counselor. I am looking at the different possibility here, so so the clerk is checking into it. Give me a few minutes. Yes. Absolutely.

Councilor Peterson.

Thank you. Was just going to ask a little bit about your business. I apologize. I don't know enough about it, but would you be able to tell us how long you've been in business and what exactly it is that you do?

Our electrical a union electrical contracting firm celebrating our sixtieth year.

Mhmm.

My great grandfather started the company. My dad's now the owner. He's here with me. Mhmm. And we only do industrial or commercial business.

What else? It's pretty much it.

And just out of curiosity, how many employees do you have?

Right now, 60, but it can range. It can go up to a 100 or so.

That's great. Mhmm. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Almost had to go back out of Europe and thank you.

Alright. Well, thank you so much. And so just out of concerns that have been raised and the the ask by councilwoman Harris who represent the area and myself. I'll I like to go, down there and also, look further into this. I'm I'm not denying it.

So but but I just want to have a little bit more time. So we are gonna be back here September 14 because we have other items that we need to hear on that day. So with that said, I'd like to turn a motion to continue to September 14.

I'd like a second. Make a motion, mister chair.

So the motion is made by councilor Harris and second by councilman Vargas. All in favor, aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. So this item will be continued to September, '14 at 05:30.

Thank you. Madam clerk, item number four.

Item four, petition from AGM Holdings LLC by its attorney Mary b Shikarji, law office of Mary b Shikarji, fifty one Jefferson Boulevard, suite four, Warwick, Rhode Island zero two eight eight eight, dated 04/02/2026 requesting to change the official zoning map of the city of Providence by changing the zoning district for the property located at 149 Governor Street in Providence, Rhode Island and identify as Plot 14 Lot 128 from R 3 to R Dash P.

Thank you. And we have a letter from the CPC. So motion to enter into the record, letter from the CPC. By councilor Peterson, second by councilor Vargas. So in favor, aye.

Opposed, yes. It. Bob, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of This property currently, if you look at it, it's a small one story building that appears as a commercial building. It has historically been used as a dentist's office with one residence. This was granted by a zoning variance many years ago, and there's no longer a dentist office in this building. And the petitioner is requesting a zoning change here to residential professional.

Residential professional is a zone that allows for residential uses as well as certain types of professional offices like doctor's and dentist's office, psychiatrists and so forth. And this is a zone that is relatively low intensity. It's our it's our lowest intensity mixed use zone. And this was considered by the CPC, and they made a finding that the future land use map of the of the comprehensive plan allows for the RP zoning to be intermingled within the r three areas in the medium density areas. And given the fact that this is already a commercial building that is also a justification and the comprehensive plan to change the zoning to align with what currently exists, therefore, the City Plan Commission voted unanimously to recommend that this zoning change be approved.

Thank you. Any question from committee members? Hey, Renan. Thank you, Bob. And I'll call, I think it's Mary Shakashi.

Did I get that right?

Yes. You did. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening.

Good evening, mister chair and members of the committee. As stated, my name is Mary Shikarchi, and I represent the petitioner before you this evening. As mister Azar had mentioned, this building was used, and it was allowed to be used as a permissible use as a dental slash medical office since 1964. Actually, two thirds approximately to three quarters of the building is used as that type of professional office. The remaining portion was used as a very small one bedroom apartment.

The petitioner, whose managing member is doctor Frank Palletta, purchased the building approximately two years ago with the intention of continuing to have a similar practice that was there because the doctor who previously owned it since retired. He saw a need for this in the community. There are no other dentaloral surgeons in the community in that section of Providence. The apartment was vacant and has remained vacant for two years. During the design stage, it became abundantly clear that the office just could not accommodate the new technology equipment which is required by health regulations.

As a result, we are here before you seeking the zone change essentially to expand the office in the same footprint and just expand it internally in the interior to where the apartment is located. Nothing will change. It'll be the same type of practice, the same amount of employees that have always been there. It'll just be a larger space with more equipment, more advanced technology. There will be no, there's no proposal to make any changes to the exterior of the building.

It's all interior. And with that, we respectfully request that this petition be granted.

Thank you. Question from committee members? Hearing none. Thank you.

Thank you. Have a good evening.

Yeah. This is, pretty simple, really. Okay. So with that, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved.

Made by councilor Vargas, second by councilman Peterson. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. And I'll entertain a motion to approve.

So moved. Made by councilman Vargas. Second by councilman Peters. All in favor, aye. Aye.

Opposed? Item number four is approved. Thank you. Madam clerk, item number five.

Item five. Petition from Mark Rapulsa, assistant by president Providence College, 1 Cunningham Square, Providence, Rhode Island 02908, requesting approval of the for the expansion of the Providence College institutional zone, I Zone, to include college owned properties bordering by Dante Street to the West, Siri Street to the North, Providence College to the South, and non college owned properties to the East. The plot and lot numbers are Plot 119, Lots 197235, 251184, and 252.

Thank you. Mister Azar, I'll call on you again, please. Thank you.

Thank you. This petition from Providence College is to expand the institutional zone, the I Too Zone, which specifically enables development for colleges and universities. The college has come into ownership of several parcels on the north side of its campus that are not quite an entire block. I believe it's about it's about a half of a block. And they are looking to develop this for, I believe it's a facility that's that's related to its physical plant.

And so they are looking to expand into the zone into that area. The city plant commission looked at this in conjunction with its review of Providence College's five year institutional master plan. This was back in October 2025, at which time there were several initiatives put forward by Providence College, including new residence hall, a parking garage, and other initiatives around the the campus. And this institutional zone expansion was noted in the institutional master plan. It's a requirement that this be reviewed as part of the plan and reviewed by the city plan commission as a potential zoning change.

And in conjunction with the approval of the institutional master plan, the city plan commission voted to make a positive recommendation to expand the institutional zone as depicted on the plan.

Question from committee member for mister Azar. Hearing none. Thank you, Bob. Thank you. And I'll call on.

Moza. Marissa. Brown. Yeah. Thank you.

And while I do that, I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record that letter from the CPC. So move. Updated letter. The updated letter from the CPC? So moved.

Made by councilman Varga, second by council Peterson. All in favor, aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. Thank you. Hello, Marisa.

Hi. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. I'm here to share some comments related to PC's petition to expand the institutional zone and the ramifications of this decision on the Elmhurst and Wanscook neighborhoods, and more broadly, the housing crisis and the role that the city's universities and hospitals have played in contributing to it. To back up a little bit, Providence College purchased five properties in the February and February that include a single family ranch house at 111 Dante Street, a single family colonial home built in 1930 at 50 Saras Street, and then also on Dante, a two family home, three family home, and a six unit apartment building, all built between the nineteen sixties and nineteen eighties.

In their last institutional master plan, PC proposed extending the I zone to include the site that is up for review today, signaling their intention to demolish these homes to build a new facilities building. That plan was reviewed by the City Plan Commission on May 30. While it was approved, I do wanna note that CPC chair Michael Gazzdaco said at the meeting, my question is about long term expansion. It seems like it's growing, and it's going to keep growing. Mark Repozo for PC responded then at that meeting, we have no long term plan to bring the properties that are presently out of the I zone, for example, into the I zone, except for those properties that are mentioned in this institutional master plan.

And Gizdako responded to that, I hear you saying that now. It's exactly the same answer you gave us the last time you were here, not two years ago when we talked about the new nursing school expansion. Our concern is the encroachment into the neighborhood, and that is definitely pushing your barrier out into the existing residential neighborhood. PPS created a sorry. I'm the executive director of Providence Preservation Society.

So PPS created a map last year after that meeting that showed PC's ownership of 39 properties in the immediate vicinity of the college. Some of these properties actually comprise multiple lots, which may indicate future expand expansion plans into a neighborhood that is already experiencing intense housing pressure due to the proliferation of student rentals. On Dante And Saras Street, which we're talking about tonight, the city is about has lost 13 units of housing through PC's acquisition and demolition future demolition of these homes. Across town, Fox Point is about to lose another seven units as Brown intends to demolish four multifamily homes it owns to build a new economics department. Providence's universities and hospitals, its eds and meds institutions have grown over time through this incremental clearance of the city's housing stock, contributing to the current housing crisis while taking tax paying properties off the tax rolls.

I think at this point, we have to ask the question of whether it's time to assess the iZone's effectiveness at balancing institutional growth with neighborhood vitality. Because everywhere we have institutions of higher education or a large health care institution, neighborhoods are being squeezed. And I believe the city is not doing enough right now to write this balance. This is the case in Elmhurst, Wanscook, and Upper South Providence, and to much less of an extent in Fox Point bordering Brown. These institutions do not release the number of housing units they have demolished over time.

We have asked for those numbers. They say they don't keep them, and they will not release them publicly. So we are in the midst, at PPS, of trying to put some of these numbers together. I can say now, while we're in the midst of this research process, we believe that Brown has demolished more than a 150 buildings, most of those housing and multifamily housing since 1940. The area around in South Providence around the hospitals has seen the clearance of about 400 buildings, most of those multifamily housing.

So we're talking about a loss of housing, thousands and thousands of units of housing over time. I'd like to reiterate that about 40 to 45% of the property in Providence is tax exempt, and I'd love like to urge the consideration of whether you believe the city has adequately intervened to balance institutional growth and needs and campus growth with the neighborhood well-being. Thank you.

Thank you, Marissa. Any question from committee members? Marissa? Councilor Peterson?

No. It's not a question. It's more a comment. Thank you, Marissa, for always really engaging on this particular topic. It's something that, as you know, is very, very important to me and my neighborhood.

When we're talking about the needs of Ward 14, where this is this is reflective of, we specifically talk about the two things that are happening all at once simultaneously. It's the expansion of the college as well as the expansion of the student housing and what that footprint does to the neighborhood itself. I have been on record numerous times talking about, really trying to assess where the neighborhood fits into all of this, and it really shouldn't be that way. Right? It should actually be quite the opposite.

Mhmm.

And so I really do just wanna say that I appreciate you taking the time to do a lot of this work. Part of where I think we need to do better, I need to do better, is to inform my neighbors even more about what this looks like. And yesterday, we had a conversation. The planning department had a wonderful opportunity for neighbors to come out and talk about the student housing overlay district specifically in Ward 14. And the one thing that there were many takeaways from it, but the the number one takeaway, I think, that was a resounding of resounding support is that the neighbors genuinely aren't always aware of everything that that's happening.

And so it is absolutely in my purview. It's it's what we need to do as much as we utilize social media and letters and the there's just not enough, and people also don't have enough time. When this came through, I think you saw my my testimony on this about how upset I was because of the families that were leaving the neighborhood. Not only are we, as a city, contending with affordability, we also have this main issue of, our footprint is looking smaller and smaller. And these are these are the constant conversations that I'm having not only with the city, with city officials and the administration and but also with the neighbors that have tried for many years to say, hey.

What about me? I really just wanna I wanna thank you for for all of your work on this. I, I have a lot to say on this particular topic, but I'm cognizant of the fact that there is so much more that we need to do, around what the institutional master plan looks like for all the colleges. And I think that that's actually, that's exactly the topic that we need to start addressing because we're doing pockets of things, but it actually needs to be a larger conversation. So I really appreciate and applaud, all of your efforts, and I think that, my support is reluctant on this particular situation.

Ultimately, they did everything that they needed to do to be able to expand on this, and I fought they can probably tell you I fought as much as I could. I'm sure everybody here could tell you. And but the conversation isn't over. I think that's where my my bottom line on this thing is is I think, you've opened up a a larger piece of the looking glass that we really need to entertain and discuss because everything you said was accurate. So thank you, and I really would love to speak with you off line to, really start engaging in that part of the process.

Thank you. Thank

you. Thank you, Marisa.

Thank you.

Right Councilor Peterson

thank you. I wanted to take a quick minute and just do a point of personal expression just simply because I wasn't quite done, but I also knew that it wasn't in the part. In response to Marissa's comments. You know, I While I very much have, paused and really wanted to step back and look at the overall, considerations for my neighborhood as it's as it's with regards to the expansion. One thing that does need to be said is that, in the moments where I've asked Providence College to do just a little bit more, whether it was have three meetings instead of two, have a conversation with the neighbors that are calling with complaints a little bit more.

They have worked they've found some way to work it, and I very much want to appreciate that. I wanna just make sure that I address the one thing that I think has been on the minds of all of my neighbors, and it was very relevant in yesterday's conversation, is that while I am going to support this petition, I do wanna put it on record to say that this particular master plan, the next time it comes up, it really should have something to do around, building dorms. It is extremely extremely important for the neighborhood to know and be and be part of the the conversation, the ongoing conversation of what, dorm building would look like on campus. Because at this point, being hit by both ends, Like I said before, our, our neighborhood is getting our footprint is getting smaller as neighbors, and there's a lot of responsibility put on the neighbors' backs as well. So I do wanna make sure that I do say that.

And I, the last thing I wanna say is, Steve, I'm pretty sure this is one of the last things that you're going to be doing as the, in in your official capacity at Providence College, and I I wanna recognize, how wonderful it has been to work with you even when we were in multiple disagreements about the things that were happening. You have consistently met this with professionalism, and I wanna thank you for going as far above and beyond as you could to support the neighbors when we asked of it. So I just wanna publicly and on record say thank you, and I wish you nothing but a very wonderful, relaxing retirement into something that has nothing to do with off campus housing.

Thank you, counselor Peterson. Well stated. Well said. So with that, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Made by councilor Peterson, second by councilor Mervaga.

All in favor. Aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. And I'll also entertain a motion to approve. By councilor Peterson, second by councilor Mervaga.

All in favor. Aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. Item number five is approved. Thank you.

Madam clerk, item number six, please.

Item six. Petition from John j Garahee John j Garahee Law LLC 2088 Brush Street, Cranston, Rhode Island 02905 requesting to rezone the property located at 163 Norman Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903 located on assessor's Plot 10, Lot 41 from R Dash B to C Dash 2.

Thank you. Mister Aza, please. And can I get the sign up sheet for item number six? Thank you. Two people.

Thank you, Mr. Azer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay.

This last one is a piece of property that's in the residential professional district. It's also in the historic district. And this falls on North Main Street. It's sort of in the vicinity of the Roger Williams Williams National Memorial. There is there's an existing building on the site.

There's some open space, and the petitioner is interested in constructing a new apartment building on the lot. The c two zone would allow for a little bit more density on the site. And and this is directly adjacent to a c two zone, so it would it would just be nudging that c two zone over by one lot. And I'm sure as you know, North Main Street has been the focus of a lot of study lately by the planning department and the North Main Street task force head headed by councilwoman Anderbois. This happens to be in the 3rd Ward.

And what is being proposed here is very much consistent not only with the comprehensive plan in terms of housing production and density along a main commercial corridor, but all very much consistent with the work of the North Main Street task force and all of the studies that have been conducted around that area. So that said, the CPC reviewed this and found that the rezoning would conform to the comprehensive plan, and they recommended unanimously, that you approve this.

Thank you, Bob. Any question for Bob? Hearing none. Thank you, Bob. And I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record CPC letter made by councilor Peterson, second by councilman Vargas.

Second. All in favor, aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. Thank you. And I'll call on mister John Garahee, please.

Thank you, mister chairman, members of the committee. John Garrity on behalf of the applicant. Let me just start off by saying that, this is a success story for the owner that has come back to develop this property. Someone that has gone from classical high school, gone out west to work in the tech world, and now has come back to make his community a better place. So I think, you know, we don't hear about those stories enough, and I just wanted to bring that out.

So this is a person who has come back, who has an interest growing up here, has gone out west, and now has come back. So that's that's the person who's gonna try to develop this property. As Bob indicated, this, rezoning aligns with the city goals and particularly the North Main Street corridor study, to target underutilized lots for for, high high density development. This is on the the edge of the downtown area. It's kind of a a, infill that essentially it's a it's a parking lot that is gonna be used for multifamily, dwelling to pry provide more housing for the people within the community.

It's within the transit oriented district right at North Main Street, walkable to, you know, downtown, train station, and all the amenities within the downtown area. I think it, as as you had heard earlier, the RP zone where this is located limits density to the size of the lot. So as as a result, because there's already a building on it and because it's limited to the size of the lot, this will be allowed for more housing in this area where it's entirely appropriate. I'll also say this, mister chairman. As Bob indicated, it's in the Historic District, so any development will be subject to the Historic District Commission review.

So it's gonna be tastefully done. The architect, Christine West, is the architect. So it's gonna be tastefully done for the area where it's located. And and what I'll also say is what's new is old again because this area was had these types of larger buildings along this corridor, which were demolished over time. So I think it's kind of restoring what was there originally to to its prior glory, if you will, mister chairman.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I don't have any question. A question from committee members? Hearing none. Thank you, mister Gary.

Thank you very much. Now call on is it Ken Snyder? My notes from my

from my iPhone. My name is Ken Snyder, and I'm the relatively new owner of 40 North Court Street, which is directly behind 163167 North Main Street. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. My house is the Benjamin Cushing House, which was built in seventeen thirty seventeen thirty seven, which is reportedly the third oldest standing house in Providence, the oldest on College Hill, and it's featured in a number of important architectural books about Providence, as well as on the PBS's website. My house sits on the back of a very narrow lot with a one story stone retaining wall from the east side, a fence just a few feet behind on the north side towards Katy Street, and a walkway in relatively narrow strip of land to the west looking over the garage and parking lot in the lot in question this evening.

That garage sits one story lower than my lot and backs up directly to the hillside, no doubt acting as a retaining wall for the hill. As the director Butter, I'm very concerned about any construction on that lot for a number of reasons, including any potential impact to the hillside and the structure of my very old house. And any construction will block views and light from the side of my house that is currently the side that is most open. At the outset, just wanna say, actually, I am a realtor. I am in support of housing production.

I know that's a major issue in Providence. So I'm not opposed to seeing housing built on that lot or the conversion of the existing historic building to purely residential because right now I think it's mostly office space. But if be one thing if it only applied to the conversion of that building, but because it applies to any new construction that would go up on the lot, my fear is that changing it from RP, which already allows housing, to c two will allow it to be a much bigger and denser building, a lot larger lot coverage, potentially higher, potentially shorter setbacks, which of course would impact me and our and my other neighbors quite directly. I know the city planning commission had put in a recommendation to support this change, and that part of their argument and what we heard tonight is that this is already adjacent to a commercial zone. But the thing we're adjacent to is the Old State House and the Old State House Park.

Next to that is the fire station. So you have to actually go to Meeting Street until you really hit a commercial block, and actually that building with the Exobar is owned by the same person who bought 163 Main Street. More importantly, all the side streets that run from North Main to Benefit, starting from Meeting and continuing South, are basically all commercial. So that's a very dense commercial zone. But when you get to North Court Street and you head North, all of those streets that run from North Main Street to Benefit are residential with the exception of a few buildings that are on North Main that are very similar in usage as the one at 163.

So they're all kind of residential and office space. So my concern is that we're kind of ex making the argument to extend that commercial zone into a location that's actually very highly residential, and so there is a change in the neighborhood. And if we do that, I feel like we can incrementalize ourselves from, you know, block to block to block and and kinda where where do you draw the line. So given all of this, without at least a general understanding about the owner who I've met and seems very nice, I know he's interested in history and I know we're gonna be in the historic district, so there's gonna be some restrictions around that. But I don't understand how I could support the zoning change without at least understanding what they're hoping to build on that lot, and I'd be yet to see any indication of what that would be.

And, I wanted to thank everyone for their time.

Thank you so much. Quick okay. Thank you. Bob, doctor Peterson has a question for you.

I sorry, Bob. Just a really quick question. Because of this change and because it's in a historic zone, are there specific restrictions to lot, you know, how big a property can be or what if anything specific would we be able to know? I know that there's really really, really specific things that the historical relay say, so I'm just curious about that.

Yeah. So a 100%. The the regardless of what the c two zoning allows, The historic district commission has a 100% purview over what can be be built. The commission has the authority to require a building to be smaller than what might be allowed by that zoning. And given its location, given its proximity to very old, very historic structures like the the one adjacent and the the old State House, I believe that the historic district commission will scrutinize very heavily what is proposed here.

And not just that, but also the existing building that's on that site and how any new construction is going to fit into that context. So a 100%. And and also the commission is is is also cognizant of of when someone is building in a historic district that they be aware of and make provisions to to protect adjacent properties, retaining walls, anything that that might be either historically significant or supporting property on on other adjacent lots.

Thank you, Bob. You're welcome. David Gunk? Yeah. Hey.

You didn't think David?

I'm David Gower. I live at 8 Katy Street, which is northeast of this lot. We bought it. I don't see a reason for zoning to change in that location. This is a historic location.

It it is it shouldn't be passed on to the historic district to figure out what could be built there. It it it shouldn't be changed, the zoning, because that should restrict it right there because you the setbacks and everything are critical in that area. I have a very large retaining wall that's probably 20 feet, 25 feet high. And having no setbacks to that, I'm worried about construction right there because it's a very large retaining wall holding my property up. And setbacks and height levels in a c two zone versus the RP change the whole type of building.

It it should be up to you guys to not give the zoning, and don't worry about historic. The historic district should be protected after the fact. Your job is to protect the area in the city and keep zoning where it is. I'm a realtor. My father was on the city council.

He developed all of Benefit Street with a bunch of people, did the riverfront. I'm very familiar with the area. He It's it's a historic area. It's the beauty of the city that doesn't need a commercial zoning right in the historic district that that helps this city be what it is. It you we're talking about neighborhoods with this the the colleges are being destroyed.

Why destroy your historic district that is the charm of the city? People can develop commercial areas in other locations. You're right in the historic district. And I I think it's up to you guys to protect the zoning of where it is so that the setbacks are there. Don't pass it off to the the historic district to make the decisions.

It should be already settled here. And then they can fight over what they're gonna build with the historic district and protect the smaller footprint. The footprint should be what it is, Zone four right now. It shouldn't be passed on to the historic district to protect that. And like I say, it is the beauty of the city that's being pulled down.

You're gonna you're gonna do more commercial into part of the historic residential area that shouldn't be there.

Thank you, David. Appreciate your comments. Okay. So, with that said, I want to turn a motion excuse me. So I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item number six.

Second. Made by councilor Peterson and second by councilor Mabaughan in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

So I hear both sides. I hear the concerns, but I also hear mister Azel's presentation. This has been fully vetted by the CPC, which look at all angles, and it is conforming with a comprehensive plan. It was reviewed and looked by the North Main Street task force. It turns parking lot into housing.

So it kinda, like, meets all the criteria that we look for. So it's hard to not to agree with the comprehensive with the CPC. So with that said, I'll entertain a motion to approve. It's motion made by councilor Peterson. Do I have a second?

Second by councilor Harris. All in favor, aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. Item number six is approved, and that is the last in our calendars. So motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second. By councilor Peterson, second by councilor Wagner. All in favor, aye. This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you very much.