Good evening.

Uh we will be studying shortly.

So if you have not and you're here to uh testify on an item, uh please go right ahead and sign up on the item that you're here to um testify it on.

Thank you.

But we'll be starting shortly.

Uh good evening, everyone.

Welcome to committee on ordinance.

Um Councilman Pedro Espinal.

Uh Madame Clerk, would you please call the role?

Chairman Espino.

Present.

You have four present one absent.

You have a forum.

Garrahee Esquire.

John J.

Garrahee Law LLC 2088 Broad Street, Cranston, Rhode Island, 02905, dated February 10, 2026, requesting a zone change for the property located on assessors plot 115, lot 626, 349 Killingley Street from R1 to R3.

Thank you very much.

The letter from CPC.

So moved.

Made by Councillor Peterson, second by Councilman Vargas.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Opposed to a sabbat, thank you.

And do we have anybody here?

Mr.

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.

Mr.

Aza, good evening.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair, members of the committee.

I'm the deputy director of the Department of Planning and Development.

And uh this particular petition is for a piece of property on Killingley Street.

It's currently zoned R1.

It's a vacant lot.

It is uh over.

It's about 8600 square feet in size.

It's uh very much buildable.

Uh currently the back portion of this lot is in the C3 zone.

Um but this sits between uh different zoning categories.

R3 is across the street, and C three is directly adjacent to and behind the lot.

And um uh under these circumstances, the comprehensive plan uh is is um uh says that uh a property when it's on the border of zones like this is eligible for a change in zone.

Uh in this case, the applicant seeks to go to R3, three family residential.

Uh that would be uh certainly allowed by the comprehensive plan.

It would just involve dragging the R3 zone line across the street to encompass this lot.

This would enable uh the development of uh three family house, and that um according to the applicant is the intention here.

Uh so the city plan commission considered this, and they voted unanimously to support this petition.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazer.

Any questions from my committee members?

Thank you, Bob.

Uh Mr.

John Garrahee.

Uh good evening, Ms.

Chairman, members of the committee.

John Garrahee on behalf of the applicant.

I think uh Mr.

Aza did an excellent job of explaining this proposal.

It's um um really located at a at a nexus between several uh commercial zones with the commercial zone in the back, citizens bank right abutting it, and our three zones across the street.

Uh Mr.

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 R3 zone, uh a uh high you know, Killingley Street, Hartford Avenue, entirely appropriate for this to be uh uh more housing than less.

Any questions?

Happy to address them.

Any question from committee members?

Thank you, Mr.

Garhee.

And uh believe it's David Gallegos or Daniel.

Hello, how are you doing today?

Good evening.

Uh my name's David Gallegos.

I live on 343 Killingley Street.

Um I'm asking that you deny the rezoning of 343 Killingley Street from R1 to R3.

It's inconsistent with the uh comprehensive plan, uh, which designates our neighborhood low density residential for one to two family.

Uh R3 allows three family.

Um it's spot zoning.

Um every other lot on this block is R1, singling out one lot for upzoning has been overturned by Rhodan courts.

Uh Killingly can't handle parking.

We don't have driveways for six cars.

Umly already is narrow as it is, uh, especially in that area.

There's high traffic, as you know, the bank is there, uh, which brings in more traffic, putting uh R3 allowing a three-family unit.

It's gonna allow that man uh that many more cars.

Um it's about maybe 50 feet to 100 feet before you get to a street light.

Um, and again, it's uh it's gonna be it's gonna increase the uh the flow of traffic there.

So I ask that you deny this.

Uh you mentioned the comprehensive plan.

Uh you realize that under the new comprehensive plan, which is the next uh 10 years, uh there is no R2.

There is no uh resident to two family that I automatically became uh R3.

So the jump is from R1 to uh 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 um to apply for that rezoning.

Um so is that going to be approved in the future?

Oh, absolutely.

Uh Bob, this will be in a case-by-case basis, right?

Uh this is not uh exactly.

This only pertains to this case specifically, which is uh 800 uh 8600 square feet.

Okay, uh, which is very big lot.

So if I have a lot that's also 8600 square feet, I'm I'm gonna be allowed to uh rezone my R1.

You you would be entitled to the same thing that they're doing.

You'll be able to come here to the zoning board to us, and uh we'll evaluate that case and if that's appropriate, it uh not a problem.

Okay, and what about the uh low density zoning?

Uh low density.

Well, you know, you you you you have single family areas uh but you do have certain lots that are like especially this one here, which is uh 8600.

Uh right.

And the gentleman's asking to build a three-family in order to uh provide more housing.

Okay, so now from what I understand is uh just because it's uh 8600 uh square feet, um doesn't really determine that it's allowed to build a uh R3 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 uh from my understanding, even though it's uh uh 8600 square law, um, because it's a low density, it doesn't necessarily say that you can um build a R3 unit on there because 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 to what is adjacent to and they conclude whether that that can be achieved or not.

So that's why it's per case uh basis.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

All right, no, thank you.

Uh okay, with that said, uh motion to close the public hearing on item number one.

So move made by councilman Vargas, second by councilman Peterson.

All in favor, aye.

Opposed, yes.

Have it.

And after hearing our testimony and uh following the direction from the zoning CPC department, I'll enter the motion to approve.

Made by Councillor Peterson, second by councilman bargas, all in favor, aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Thank you.

Uh item number one is approved.

Thanks.

Madam Clerk, item number two.

Item two.

Petition from Dillon Conley Esquire, Rhode Island land use law of 123 suite 3B, Providence, Rhode Island 02903 requesting an amendment to the official zoning ordinance of the city of Providence by adding a new subsection to the text of 2005 section F billboard removal invented.

Thank you.

Uh 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.

Maybe Councillor Peterson, uh second by councilman Vargas, all in favor, aye.

Opposed, yes, have it.

And I'll enter the motion to continue item number two to a date that is certain to September 14 at 530.

So moved.

Maybe by council Woman Peterson, second by councilman bargas, all in favor, aye.

Opposed, the aye is seven.

Item number two is continued.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, item number three.

Item three.

Petition from Jeffrey Mark Aude, owner of JC131, Realty L C and President of EW Auda and Sans Inc.

Requesting to change the official zoning map of the City of Providence by changing the zoning district from various properties from MU to M1 and to change the language in section 12 02.

Of the zoning ordinance to add subsection 4 to read as follows.

A storage container may be used for permanent storage.

Thank you.

So I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record letter from the CPC.

Made by Council Peterson, second by Consulman Baraga.

All in favor, aye.

Made by Council Peterson, second by Consulman Bargas.

All in favor, aye.

Opposed, the ay Sabin.

Mr.

Bob, are you ready for this?

Of course.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Ms.

This uh petition is to change the zoning of several lots that are all owned by the petitioner from MMU 75 to M1.

And uh there's a a slight difference between MMU 75 and M1 in the zoning ordinance.

Uh MMU 75 is a zone, probably the most flexible zone that we have in the city.

Uh it allows for industrial uses, um, it allows for commercial uses and it allows for residential uses.

M1 is more of a strictly M1 zone, uh industrial zone uh that does not allow for residential uses.

Uh and it also allows for certain uses that are a little bit more intensive in nature than MMU 75.

In particular, M1 allows for uh outdoor storage and it allows for uh contractor storage yard.

Um that is uh what is happening on much of the property that's owned by the petitioner, they are a um a um contractor and they have a lot of equipment and supplies that they store on their various pieces of property.

Um and uh in some cases their lots have have been pre-existing uh uh in our grandfathered for this use, in other cases they are not.

So what they're attempting to do here is to uh get the city to change the zoning so that all of their property would will be conforming to the zoning ordinance.

Furthermore, they're asking for a change in the ordinance such that uh with contractor storage yards, um, 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 uh portable containers like shipping containers.

Um, and what this would allow is for uh equipment and supplies that that uh may not be appropriate to be stored outside uh within uh uh uh a structure um so that it wouldn't be subject to exposure to the elements.

Uh 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 M1 and MMU zoning.

So the comprehensive plan would allow you to make the zoning change to the map.

They also found that the uh additional change in the language to allow for storage within uh containers on site would be appropriate as well, given that uh it could help to um organize the site a little bit better and take things that are sitting on the ground and put them inside of a structure.

Um the one caveat that they added here was that they felt that uh the permanent outdoor storage uh that that the use of storage containers should be subject to a special use permit um with demonstrated conformance with section 1202 H of the ordinance pertaining to the development of contractor storage yards.

I want to talk about that for for a minute because this is a rare occasion where I disagree with the city plan commission's um uh recommended condition here.

Um outdoor storage yards, the requirement is that they be fenced and landscaped around the perimeter uh so that the storage is not um you know obvious or visible from the street.

Um that's gonna be a requirement regardless of whether uh you have to get a special use permit or not.

So in order for them 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 uh additional hoop for them to go through to have to go to the zoning board to get a special use permit.

Um you have the authority over zoning.

You can listen to the applicant, you can uh you can um question the applicant about what they intend to do.

In my opinion, that should suffice 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, um the commission does recommend that you advance this uh 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.

Sorry.

Um forgive me, is there any sort of um, and thank you for for that information, Deputy Director.

Um, 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?

Um for for shipping containers to be used as storage.

Um so on land, yeah.

So um so the I'll start by saying um if you bear with me just a second.

I'll start by saying that um this is not something that uh we want to see everywhere, and in fact, there is language in the zoning ordinance that prohibits shipping containers uh in residential zones.

Um we had seen there was one sort of notorious case where somebody was using a shipping container in their in their um in their yard in the Elmhurst neighborhood to store who knows what, but it was wholly inappropriate.

Um so we specifically say that shipping containers are not permitted um uh in residential zones.

Um then uh I'm trying to I don't know just bear with me a quick second because I think we we do speak to storage containers um yeah uh we we do allow for for temporary outdoor storage containers.

Uh this is typically um say that somebody is uh has a uh a construction project and they want to move things out of out of a building and store it temporarily.

Um they're allowed to do that.

Uh you know, these um 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 that we do allow, and we even allow that in residential zones.

Uh, but we don't specifically um allow for permanent storage containers um within um any zone, and and I would argue that that's um 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 uh heavy commercial or industrial zones.

Um I think it it rather than requiring someone to build a building to store things, uh a container like this could be um an economical way to to you know organize um equipment, material, things that don't need to be inside of a of a air conditioned building and so forth.

uh heavy commercial or industrial zones um i think it it rather than requiring someone to build a building to store things a uh container like this could be um an economical way to to you know organize um equipment material things that don't need to be inside of a of a air conditioned building and so forth so this would be um this would allow for something that that we hadn't allowed for previously um but um there would be a a condition that they can't be stacked on the site we've seen that and we've cited that in the past um but you know if they're well organized if they're properly fenced and the lot is properly landscaped I think it's a I think it's it's shouldn't be a problem thank you um and I appreciate that context my concern is more about it becoming common practice where we have um 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 um 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 um more feasible yeah so uh just just um for a little bit more context uh contractor storage yard uh currently is only permitted uh by right in the the W3 M1 and M2 zones so the heaviest of the um industrial zones um it's already a special use permit in the C3 zone so um even to establish a contractor storage yard regardless of whether it would have uh uh outdoor uh storage within a container you you would require a special use permit there so um so this is um you know these are the W3 M1 and M2 zones W3 and M2 a hundred percent are very much separate from kind of residential neighborhoods these are these zones only exist east of the highway between the highway and the Providence River M1 exists elsewhere in the city but it's generally um separate from residential areas these are industrial areas where there are industrial operations happening um it would not be unusual to see for example tractor trailers parked on a site in an M1 zone you go to capco steel uh for example and um they have tractor trailers all over their site and in fact they drop the the um the containers on the ground i mean they're already they're already doing it frankly bob just a quick question uh consular vodka just a second uh so within the m u you you could build residential right in the mmu yes mm ues 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 uh vacant empty lots yes so your point is well taken that that uh in this particular area where the petitioner is requesting this change to M1 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 um and it's it's not unusual in Providence to have areas of of MMU and M1 kind of interspersed um 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 M1 tends to be separate from residential areas uh I should clarify and say separate from residential zones um there are residences and there are residential areas within MMU um however uh those houses already exist in the midst of commercial and industrial operations so I think I think there's really there's really two parts of this of this petition that you you are considering and you should think about them um separately but also together the first part is is whether you want to support the actual map change and then the second part is whether you want to support the use of shipping containers as as storage devices within contractor storage yards um you know I I would argue that that storing things inside of a of a structure of a structure that's maybe eight or ten feet tall

The first part is is whether you want to support the actual map change, and then the second part is whether you want to support the use of shipping containers as storage devices within contractor storage yards.

Um I would argue that that storing things inside of a uh of a structure of uh structure that's maybe eight or ten feet tall, um as opposed to requiring the the erection of a building for indoor storage is not a bad thing in a zone like this.

Thank you.

What about is this uh base so we're talking about 18 properties?

Correct.

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

So the petitioner owns all these 18 properties, and all single ones he wants to change it to M1.

That's right, and he's going to be putting one container in each property.

I think the uh I believe the petitioners here.

You could you could certainly ask them.

Because the question here is that they want to change it to the Sony owners to to have containers, but which property will hold the containers?

That's the question, and what he's going to be doing with uh with the rest of the properties.

Well, I think that would be a good question to this is 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 Eddie Street, right?

It's next to the water.

What about?

Do you know what it is?

It's uh it's between it's between Eddie Street.

This area is between Eddie 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.

Um I 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 uh attached to the petition where the the properties are outlined.

Yes, we're looking at it.

So you can see where they are.

And I and I think that you know it bears it bears mentioning that this is uh this is a providence-based business.

They're uh uh I believe they're an electrical contractor, they're a commercial contractor.

Um, and I'm assuming that over the years they as they have expanded, they have acquired lots um in the vicinity of of uh their existing properties.

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

All right, thank you.

All right, thank you, Bob, and welcome.

With that, I'll call Mr.

Jacks O that hello everybody.

Hello, good evening.

So I'm Jack Sawdett, fourth generation to my family's business here in Providence.

We're an electrical contracting company celebrating our 60th year this year.

Um 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.

Um 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.

EWR Debt 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.

Um 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.

Do you have any questions?

Yes, thank you for coming and testify that the little confusion is now we're talking about 18 properties, right?

So one property, I'm sure the the building is uh 200 oaknell cornell street.

Where's the building located?

Um all the buildings are located on Bay Street.

All the Base fee.

So all the buildings.

Correct.

So we have 17 buildings?

No, um how many buildings?

One, two, three, four buildings.

Five buildings, actually.

Five buildings.

So you use in 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 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 60 years.

So nothing would be changing, it would just be asking for permission to do what we've been doing.

Um we didn't really know we were breaking the zoning ordinance, councilman.

I'm I'm I'm okay.

The the I'm trying to picture the petition is to to change to M1.

And to have containers on each lot.

Um refresh my mind.

Go ahead, Chair.

Yeah, go ahead.

I I mean I mean that I guess the um 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 um using shipping containers.

Uh so the question perhaps the councilman has and is the all right.

So, how many per lot?

Uh what would the area look like?

Um also take it into concern uh and into consideration the concerns from the neighbors.

We also got in letters about this.

So um it just got us thinking about it first, yeah.

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 Bay Street, right?

You have 835 the one one, two, three, four, five, six, and one line.

I don't see a problem in that one because you own all those lots.

But when I go into a sharing Sheridan Sherburn, Sherman 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 which is number here.

The street doesn't show up the street here.

But uh the question is like I'm okay with the line on base feet because you own you on the whole street.

That's fine.

It's your property.

Nobody, you're not going to be buying nobody.

But taking the opportunity to come here and have 18 lots, or 18 properties to change at once is a concern.

Um, perhaps on Sherburn Street, that's the last lot on the right.

So 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.

Um, so that's your concern with the neighbor there.

It's a dead end.

Which one is that one?

The so the highway Sherburn.

Sherman?

The highway intersects all the streets there.

Um, the main one being Bay Street, Sherburn, and O'Connell.

Okay.

Are you going to have a uh concrete base to put a container on top or yes drop in the dirt?

Um 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 have an issue with rats, so the rats will be digging into that if you put it on the dirt.

That's what it is.

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

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Counselor Harris.

Fourth.

Thank you.

Oh, yeah.

I thought it's them allowed naturally.

Congratulations on your six is the anniversary and your fourth generation of being a part of the business.

Um what has been happening with the storage?

You may have said it, and it's it may pass my mind.

What has been happening with the storage within the 60 years?

Do you take them out?

Do you the storage containers?

What's your question?

What has happened over the 60 years with the storage containers that you use and um you said that you've been using them for about 60 years?

So they just um 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 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.

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 in every property.

So appreciate that for the answer.

Um also had and I appreciate this as well.

Is the fact that um this sort of would be set in present according to what we've heard of um of uh companies that probably will come down the road and use you as a statue to continue this.

I guess my biggest concern is your neighbors, you know.

Um a lot of things in South Providence just happens.

You already was existing, you grand, yeah, obviously your grandfather in, been there for years and years.

So I would like to understand better.

What else could be done other than um 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 want to take a moment to give a recognition to I um uh policy person, um Aaron Garden, who showed up.

I was supposed to be meeting with you as well, but Aaron did show up and um was able to give us the information we needed to move forward.

So I appreciate that.

I just want to 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 um I do know we have some letters from neighbors and would like to try to understand it better.

So at this time, uh Mr.

Chair, I'd like to propose that we continue this matter to understand it better.

Uh thank you, counselor.

I am looking at the different possibility here, so the clerk is checking into it.

Give me a few minutes.

Uh yes, absolutely, counselor Peterson.

Thank you.

Um 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 60th year.

Uh, my great-grandfather started the company.

Um my dad's now the owner, he's here with me.

Um we only do industrial or commercial business.

Um pretty much at the and just out of curiosity, how many employees do you have?

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

That's great.

Thank you.

Uh thank you so much.

Thank you.

So I'm all set to go back.

Okay.

You're off there, thank you.

All right, well, thank you so much.

And uh so um uh just out of uh concerns uh have been raised and the the ask by councilwoman Harris who represented the area and myself I like to go uh down there and also uh look further into this.

Uh I'm not denying it, so but uh but I just want to have a little bit more time.

So we are going to be back here September 14th, because we have other items that we need to hear on that day.

So with that said, I'll entertain a motion to continue to September 14.

Um second make a motion, Mr.

Chair.

So the motion is made by Councillor Harris and a second by Councilman Vargas.

All in favor, aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

So this item will be continued to September uh 14 at 530.

Thank you.

Uh Madam Clerk, item number four.

Item four petition from AGM Holdings LLC by its attorney, Mary B.

Shikarchi, Law Office of Mary B.

Shikarchy, 51 Jefferson Boulevard, suite four, Warbeck, Rhode Island, 02888, dated April 2, 2026, requesting to change the official zoning map of the CD of Providence by changing the zoning district for the property located at 149 Governor Street in Providence, Rhode Island, and identify as Plat 14 La 128 from R3 to R.

Thank you.

And we have a letter from the CPC, so motion to enter into the record.

Uh letter from the CPC.

Second by Council Baggins in favor.

Aye.

Opposed, yes, have it.

Uh Bob, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman members.

Thank you.

Uh this property currently, uh, if you look at it, it's a small one-story uh building that appears uh as a commercial building.

It has historically been used as a dentist's office uh with one residence.

If it this was granted by a zoning variance uh many years ago, um uh there's no longer a dentist office in this building.

Uh and the petitioner is requesting a zoning change here to residential professional.

Um residential professional is a zone that allows for residential uses as well as certain types of professional offices like doctors and dentists' office, psychiatrists and so forth.

Um, and this is a zone that uh is relatively low intensity, it's our it's our lowest intensity mixed use zone.

Um this was considered by the CPC, and they made a finding that the future land use map of the of the comprehensive plan um uh allows for the RP zoning to be intermingled within the R3 uh areas in the um medium density areas.

Um and given the fact that this is already a commercial uh building that is also a justification and the comprehensive plan to change the zoning to align with what currently exists.

Uh therefore the city plan commission voted unanimously to recommend that this zoning change be approved.

Thank you.

Any question from committee members?

Thank you, Bob.

And I'll call um I think it's Mary Shikashi.

Did I get that right?

Yes, you did.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair and members of the committee.

Uh as stated, my name is Mary Shikarchi, and I represent the petitioner before you this evening.

Um, as Mr.

Azar had mentioned, this building um 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 um type of professional office.

The remaining portion was used as a very small one-bedroom apartment.

Um, the petitioner um whose managing member is Dr.

Frank Paletta, purchased the building approximately two years ago with the intention of continuing to have a similar practice that is was there.

Um, because the doctor who previously owned it since retired, um, he saw a need for this in the community.

There are no others dental slash oral surgeons in the community of in that section of Providence.

Um the apartment was vacant and has remained vacant for two years.

Um during the design stage, it became abundantly clear that the office um just could not accommodate the new technology equipment, which is required by health regulations.

Um 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 uh where the apartment is located.

Nothing will change.

Um 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.

Um there will be no um, there's no proposal to make any changes to the exterior of the building, it's all interior.

Um with that, um, 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 uh pretty simple really.

Um okay, so with that, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So move.

Maybe counselor Bradga, second by councilman Peterson.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Opposed the ayes have it, and I'll entertain a motion to approve.

So move.

Maybe by councilman Bargas.

Second by Consulwan Peterson, all in favor, aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Item number four is approved.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, item number five.

Petition from Mark Reposal, assistant by President Providence College, one Cunningham Square, Providence, Rhode Island, 02908, requesting approval of the is for the expansion of the Providence College Institutional Zone, I zone to include a college-owned properties water by Dante Street to the west, series street to the north, Providence College to the South, and non-college-owned properties to the east.

The plot and lot numbered are plot one nineteen lot 197, 235, 251, 184, and 252.

Thank you.

I'll call on you again, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh this petition from Providence College is to expand the institutional zone, the I2 zone, which uh specifically enables um development uh for colleges and universities.

Um the uh college has uh come into ownership of several parcels on the north side of its campus that um are not quite an entire block.

I believe it's about it's about a half of a block.

Um, and they are looking to uh develop this um for uh I believe it's a uh a facility that's that's related to its physical plant.

Um and so they are looking to expand uh into the zone into that area.

Um the city plant commission looked at this in conjunction with its review of Providence College's five-year institutional master plan.

This was uh back in October of 2025, uh at which time there were several initiatives put forward by Providence College, including uh a new residence hall, a parking garage, um, and uh other um initiatives uh around the the campus uh 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 uh reviewed by the city plan commission as a uh potential zoning change and in conjunction with the approval of the institutional master plan.

The uh city plan commission voted to make a positive recommendation to expand the institutional zone as depicted on the planet question from committee member for Mr.

Azar.

Hey, Renan, thank you, Bob.

Thank you.

And I'll call on Marisa Brown.

Yeah, thank you.

And while I do that, I wanted to ten a motion to enter into the record the letter from the CPC.

So move.

Updated letters the updated letter from the CPC.

So move.

Maybe Councilman Barga, second by Council Peterson.

All in favor, aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Thank you.

Hello, Marisa.

Hi, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, 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 Wandscook 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 2000s and 2010s that include a single family ranch house at 111 Dante Street, a single family colonial home built in 1930 at 50 Sarah Street, and then also on Dante, a two-family home, three-family home, and a six-unit apartment building, all built between the 1960s and 1980s.

In their last institutional master plan, PC proposed extending the IZone 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 30th.

Um, while it was approved, I do want to note that CPC Chair Michael Gazdako 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 Raposo 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 Gazdaco 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.

Um 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 explan expansion plans into a neighborhood that is already experiencing intense housing pressure due to the proliferation of student rentals.

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 taxpaying properties off the tax rolls.

I think at this point we have to ask the question of whether it's time to assess the IZON'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, Wandscook, and Upper South Providence, and to much less of an extent in Fox Point bordering Brown.

So we are in the midst at PPS of trying to put some of these numbers together.

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.

And I'd like to urge the consideration of whether you believe the city has adequately intervened to balance institutional growth and needs and campus growth with neighborhood well-being.

Thank you.

Thank you, Marisa.

Any question from committee members?

Marisa.

Counselor 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 so I really do just want to say that I appreciate you taking the time to do a lot of this work.

And yesterday we had a conversation.

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, um, it's it's what we need to do.

As much as we utilize social media and letters and there's just not enough, and people also don't have enough time.

Um 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 um our footprint is looking smaller and smaller.

And these are the these are the constant conversations that I'm having, not only with the city um with city officials and the administration and but also with the neighbors that have tried for many years to say, hey, what about me?

Um I really just want to I want to thank you for for all of your work on this.

I um 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 um around what the institutional master plan looks like for all the colleges, and I think that that's actually um 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 um all of your efforts, and I think that um 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.

Um, and but the conversation isn't over.

I think that's where my my bottom line on this thing is is I think um you've opened up a larger piece of the looking glass that we really need to entertain and discuss because everything you said was accurate.

Um, so thank you.

Um, and I really would love to speak with you offline to um really start engaging in that part of the process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Marisa.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Councillor Peterson.

Thank you.

In response to Marissa's comments.

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.

Whether it was have three meetings instead of two, have a conversation with the neighbors that are calling with complaints a little bit more.

And I very much want to appreciate that.

And it was very relevant in yesterday's conversation, is that while I am going to support this petition, I do want to 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 um dorm building would look like on campus because at this point um being hit by both ends, like I said before, our um 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 want to make sure that I do say that.

And I um the last thing I want to say um is Steve, I'm pretty sure this is probably one of the last things that you're going to be doing as the um in your official capacity at Providence College.

And I I want to recognize um 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 want to thank you for going as far above and beyond as you could to support the neighbors when we asked of it.

So I just want to publicly and on record say thank you.

Um and I wish you nothing but a very wonderful relaxing retirement into something that has nothing to do with off-campus housing.

Thank you, Councillor Peterson.

Well stated, well said.

So with that, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Maybe Councillor Peterson, second by council Mavagas, one in favor, aye.

Maybe Councilman Peterson, second by councilman Vaga, all in favor, aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Item number five is approved.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, item number six, please.

Item six.

John J.

Garhi Law L C 208A Broad Street, Cranston, Rhode Island, 02905.

Requesting to resonate property located at 163 Normain Street, Providence, Rhode Island, 02903, located on accessors plat 10, lot 41 from R dash B to C 2.

Thank you, Mr.

Aza, please.

Can I get the signature for item number six?

Thank you.

Two people.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, uh this last one is a piece of property that's in the residential professional district.

Uh it's also in the historic district, and this falls uh on North Main Street.

It's sort of in the vicinity of the Roger Williams uh national memorial.

Um there is um uh there's an existing building on the site, there's some open space, and uh the petitioner is interested in uh constructing a new apartment building on the lot.

Um the C2 zone would allow for a little bit more uh density on the site, and um and this is directly adjacent to a C2 zone, so it would it would just be nudging that C2 zone over uh by one lot.

Um and I'm sure as you know, North Main Street has been the focus of a lot of study lately uh by the planning department and uh the North Main Street Task Force had headed by uh Councilwoman Anderbois.

Um this happens to be in the third ward.

Um, and uh 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 uh commercial corridor, but all very much consistent with the work of the uh North Main Street uh task force and all the studies that have been conducted around that area.

So that said, uh the CPC reviewed this and found that the rezoning would conform to the comprehensive plan.

Um, and they recommended unanimously uh that you approve this.

Thank you, Bob.

Any question for Bob?

Here and none, thank you, Bob.

Uh and our entertainment to enter into the record CPC letter made by Councillor Peterson, second by Consident Varagas.

Second all in favor, aye.

Opposed to yes, have it.

Thank you.

And I'll call on Mr.

John Garrahee, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the committee.

John Gower here on behalf of the applicant.

Uh let me just start off by saying that um this is a success story for the owner that has come back to develop this property.

Uh, 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 uh try to develop this property.

Uh as Bob indicated, um, this uh rezoning aligns with the city goals and particularly the North Main Street corridor study uh to target underutilized lots for for um high density development.

This is on the uh the edge of the downtown area.

Um it's kind of a a um infill that essentially it's a it's a parking lot that is going to be used for multifamily uh dwelling to provide more housing for the people within the community.

Um it's uh within the transit-oriented district right on North Main Street, walkable to you know, downtown train station, and all the amenities within the downtown area.

I think it um um as as you had heard earlier, the RP zone where this is located, limits density to the size of the lot.

So 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, Mr.

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 going to be tastefully done.

Um the architect Christine West is the architect, so it's going to be tastefully done for the area where it's located.

Um, and um, 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 its prior glory, if you will, Mr.

Chairman.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

I don't have any question.

A question from committee members.

Thank you, Mr.

Gary.

Thank you very much.

Uh now a call on is it Ken Snyder.

I can read my notes from my iPhone.

Um my name is Ken Snyder, and I'm the relatively new owner of 40 North Court Street, which is directly behind 163, 167 North Main Street.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight.

Um my house is the Benjamin Cushing House, which was built in 1737 1737, which is reportedly the third oldest standing house in Providence.

Um, the oldest on College Hill, and it's featured in a number of important architectural books about Providence, uh, as well as on the PPS's website.

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.

But if it would 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 C2 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.

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 statehouse 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 exo bar 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 uh and office space.

So my concern is that we're kind of making the argument to extend that commercial zone into a location that is 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 block to block to block and kind of where where do you draw the line?

Um so given all of this, without at least a general understanding of what the owner who I've met and seems very nice.

I know he's interested in history, and I know we're going to be in the historic district, so there's going to 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've yet to see any indication of what that would be.

Um, and uh wanted to thank everyone for their time.

Thank you so much.

Uh quick okay, thank you.

Uh Bob uh Ganthra Peterson has a question for you.

I sorry, uh Bob, just a really quick question.

Um, 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 um know?

I know that there's really really specific things that the historical relay say, so I'm just curious about that.

Yeah, so um a hundred percent.

The the regardless of what the C2 zoning allows, um the historic district commission has a hundred percent 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 uh zoning.

Um given its location, given its proximity to very old, very historic structures like um the one adjacent and the uh the old state house.

Um I believe that the historic district commission will uh scrutinize very heavily uh what what is proposed here and and not just that, but also the existing building that's on that site and how uh any new construction is going to fit into that context.

So uh 100%.

And and also um the commission is is also cognizant of when someone is building in a historic district that they uh be aware of and make provisions to to protect adjacent properties, uh retaining walls, anything that that might be um uh either historically significant or uh supporting property on on other adjacent lots.

Thank you, Bob.

You're welcome.

Uh David Gunk.

Yeah, hey.

Good evening, David.

Um I'm David Gower.

Uh live at 8 Katie Street, which is um northeast of this lot.

Uh we bought it.

Um I don't see a reason uh for zoning to change in that location.

This is a historic location.

Um it is it shouldn't be passed on to the historic um district to figure out what could be built there.

It it it shouldn't be changed, uh the zoning because that should restrict it right there because you the setbacks and everything are critical in that area.

Um I have a very large retaining wall uh that's probably 20 feet, 25 feet high, and um having no setbacks to that.

I'm worried about construction right there, um, because it's a very large retaining wall holding my property up.

Um and setbacks and height levels in the C2 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 the zoning where it is.

Um 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's 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.

Um and 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 um 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 zoned for right now.

It shouldn't be passed on to the historic district to protect that.

Um 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, uh David.

Appreciate your comments.

Okay, so um with that said, I want to take a motion excuse me so I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on it number six.

Some second maybe by counselor Peterson and second by Consumer Bigel in favor.

I oppose the eyes have it.

So I hear both sides, I hear the concerns, but I also uh hear uh Mr.

Azel's presentation.

This has been fully vetted by the CPC, which look at all angles and that is conforming with the comprehensive plan.

Uh it was review and looked by the North Main uh street task force.

Uh it turns parking lots into housing.

So it kind of like meets all the criteria that we look for, so it's hard to uh not to agree with the uh comprehensive uh with the CPC.

So with that said, I'll entertain a motion to approve is by counselor Peterson.

Do I have a second?

Second by Councillor Harris, on in favor, aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.