Planning board recommends against zoning amendment to allow limited expansion of nonconforming multifamily

North Providence planning board members voted unanimously Thursday to recommend denial of a proposed zoning-text amendment that would allow limited expansion of multifamily buildings nonconforming by lot-area-per-unit under a special-use permit.

The proposal, introduced by Connolly Law & Associates and described to the board by attorney Peter Friedrichs, would add new subsections to section 409(e) of the town zoning ordinance to permit, under narrow conditions, additional units on long-standing multifamily properties through a special-use permit. Friedrichs said the change was intended to "identify situations where it may be appropriate for limited, additional development on long standing, multifamily properties in the town." The planning board voted 5–0 to recommend that the Town Council not adopt the text amendment.

Board members and staff framed their objections around two recurring themes: the change would allow existing nonconforming properties to become "more nonconforming," and the amendment as drafted was too narrow and could produce site-specific exceptions rather than a community-wide policy. Town planner Brent Wiegand explained that section 505 of the zoning ordinance contains standards for special-use permits; he also clarified that the proposed subsection would tie permitted expansions to a list of conditions in a new e.2, including that expansions be limited to townhouse-style attached single-family units with a maximum of two bedrooms, be served by public water and sewer, have frontage on a state-maintained road, be located in the RG zone, abut existing multifamily uses, and not increase total unit count by more than 50% above the preexisting use.

Several board members said they were comfortable with limited change in principle but objected to the substance and scope. Member Gary Arasian said the proposal ran "contrary to what we do as planners" because it would allow nonconforming properties to increase nonconformity; Warren Riccatelli and others said the measure was so narrowly written it would likely apply to only a few sites. Wiegand and the applicant said the language was designed to limit impacts to areas already containing multifamily housing and to require notice and special-use-permit review under state statute.

The board discussed possible edits before voting, including an amendment proposed by a member to require adequate off-street parking; the applicant indicated willingness to add that language. Despite that concession, members pressed on whether the change would undermine recent town efforts to align density standards with the comprehensive plan.

Motion and vote: The planning board voted on a motion that recommended denial of the zoning-text amendment. Member Gary Arasian moved to recommend denial; Steve Potassie seconded. The motion passed 5–0.

The planning board's recommendation is advisory; the Town Council will make the final decision on any ordinance change. The applicant may revise and refile the text amendment for future consideration.