Smithfield Zoning Board approves reinstatement of fourth apartment at 274 Waterman Avenue

The Smithfield Zoning Board of Review voted to approve a use variance allowing Trinity Properties of RI LLC to reinstate a fourth apartment at 274 Waterman Avenue, the board decided after hearing testimony about building-code classification, whether the fourth unit had been abandoned, and the owner’s recent repairs.

The vote came after the board considered written guidance from town staff and an onsite inspection by the building official. Jacob Neves, the town building official, told the board that under current building codes the structure is treated as a residential multifamily building (R‑2 category) rather than a commercial building and that “there’s residential uses in the building code” that cover apartment buildings and hotels alike.

That classification mattered because board members were deciding whether the fourth unit had been abandoned and therefore whether the owner could seek reinstatement. A memorandum in the record—identified in the hearing as a town building/zoning office memo—stated the opinion that the multifamily use had continued even when the fourth unit was taken offline. The board heard testimony that the fourth unit had been left physically intact rather than gutted.

Robert J. Baldwin, the property owner, testified about his reliance on town guidance and on work he has done to bring the building back into service. “I wouldn’t have bought it without the fourth unit,” Baldwin said. He also told the board he had installed a central alarm pull‑box system that, he said in his testimony, cost about $26,000 and that the fire marshal had inspected and approved it. Baldwin said he has spent “over $200,000” on repairs to the property.

Board members and the town building official discussed the legal meaning of “abandonment,” and several members said the presence of existing kitchens, stoves and other original features weighed against a finding that the multifamily use had been abandoned. The building official advised the board that bringing the fourth unit back into service would require compliance with current building and fire codes and that the owner could pursue available code paths for existing structures and rehabilitation.

During deliberations a motion to approve the application "as submitted" was made and seconded. The board recorded that the voting members for the motion were Brian (last name not specified), John (last name not specified), Richard (last name not specified), Crane (last name not specified) and Ed (last name not specified); those members voted to approve the use variance. The board’s final action was recorded as approved.

The board did not specify additional conditions beyond the requirement that the building be brought into compliance with applicable building and fire codes before reoccupancy. The applicant was advised to continue coordination with the building and fire departments and to secure any outstanding permits before reestablishing the fourth unit.

The application record includes the board’s staff memorandum (dated in the record) and inspection notes from the town building office; board members relied on those documents and on direct testimony during the hearing.

Votes at a glance: the board approved the use-variance motion (motion text: “approve the application as submitted”), outcome: approved; recorded voting members on the motion: Brian (yes), John (yes), Richard (yes), Crane (yes), Ed (yes).