Smithfield zoning board continues hearing on Trinity Properties’ request to reinstate fourth unit at 274 Waterman Ave

Trinity Properties of Rhode Island LLC owner Robert J. Baldwin asked the Smithfield Zoning Board to reinstate a fourth apartment at 274 Waterman Avenue, but the board continued the public hearing to its March meeting and asked for written determinations from the building official and the fire marshal before making a decision.

The property owner told the board the building historically contained four units and that he has completed substantial rehabilitation work. “I’ve spent about $225,000 on it so far,” Robert J. Baldwin said, and he told the board he installed a fire-alarm pull‑box system this winter and has a letter of completion from the municipality. Baldwin said the building will be “certified lead free” after finishing work on the unit being reinstated.

The case matters locally because a reinstated fourth unit would shift how the property is regulated. Board members and staff repeatedly flagged that adding a fourth unit can change which building codes apply and can trigger additional requirements for sprinklers, energy-code compliance, paved and striped parking, stormwater controls and site-plan review. The board kept the public hearing open and voted to continue consideration to the next zoning meeting, set for March 5.

Baldwin applied under case 25‑002, requesting a use variance and dimensional relief to convert the existing three‑unit building to four units in an R‑20 (single‑family) district. He distributed three exhibits to the board: a photo of the house, a memorandum (an earlier advisory memo referenced in the packet), and a letter of completion for the fire‑alarm installation. Baldwin said the fourth unit is a reinstatement of a historically existing unit rather than a new addition.

Board members and staff focused on a set of regulatory and practical questions the board must resolve before acting: whether the reinstatement should be treated as an isolated reinstated unit or as a change in use that places the whole building under the International Building Code (IBC); whether the fire marshal will require sprinklers or other fire‑prevention work beyond the installed pull box; whether the energy code changes that took effect on February 14 apply; and whether parking and site‑plan standards (including paving, striping, single ingress/egress and landscaping) must be satisfied now that the building would be treated as nonresidential for some code purposes.

Members noted the property sits on a corner lot with two front yards, which can affect where parking is allowed, and that current front‑yard gravel or reclaimed‑asphalt parking would need to be paved and striped if the building is treated under commercial/IBC rules. The board discussed that the zoning ordinance’s dimensional standards for multifamily structures (including minimum lot area provisions cited during the hearing) might also apply; staff and board members repeatedly recommended getting guidance from the building official and fire marshal on how they would enforce building and fire codes in this reinstatement.

The board also debated whether the prior abandonment of a unit in 2005 affects the applicant’s entitlement. Members read aloud the ordinance language on abandonment of a nonconforming use and questioned whether the 2005 abandonment and subsequent approvals mean the fourth unit’s reinstatement requires a use variance or only dimensional relief.

The board asked Baldwin to provide a parking layout and encouraged him to meet with the building official and fire marshal before the next meeting. The board voted to continue the public hearing and take the item up at the March 5 zoning meeting; the public hearing remains open.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to continue the public hearing on case 25‑002 (274 Waterman Avenue) to the March 5 zoning meeting — motion made and seconded; board voted in favor and continued the item. (Public hearing kept open.)

Next steps

The applicant is expected to meet with the building official and the fire marshal, supply a parking/site layout for the board’s review and provide any permit documentation the building official requires. The board requested written clarification of how current building, fire prevention and energy codes will be applied at the time of reinstatement before taking a final vote.