Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Adaptive Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board continues public hearing on proposed 48‑unit Riverside Apartments at 114 Baird Ave.; asks for structural narrative, sewer capacity and other data
Summary
The North Providence Planning Board continued a public hearing on a proposal by Patriot Builders to convert two buildings at 114 Baird Avenue into 48 rental units, asking the applicant to supply additional technical documentation including a structural narrative and sewer‑capacity confirmation before the July 9 meeting.
The North Providence Planning Board continued the public hearing on a master plan application from Patriot Builders to convert two existing buildings at 114 Baird Avenue into 48 rental units (proposed name: Riverside Apartments). The board set a continued public hearing date of July 9 and asked the applicant to provide additional documentation before the next meeting.
Attorney Jack McGreen, representing Patriot Builders, said the applicant revised plans to reduce the larger building and to convert all units to one‑bedroom apartments. He also submitted two letters for the record: a Rhode Island Housing email stating that a letter of eligibility (LOE) is not required for adaptive reuse projects, and a signed letter from the Community Housing Land Trust of Rhode Island (CHLTRI) stating it will serve as the monitoring agent for 10 deed‑restricted affordable units. McGreen read the RHODE ISLAND HOUSING email into the record and offered the CHLTRI letter as evidence that the project would include the required affordable units and monitoring arrangements.
Board members and staff probed technical feasibility and infrastructure capacity. Civil engineer Timothy Behan and architect Adam Beauregard walked the board through revised site and architectural plans. Behan noted the larger building’s proposed footprint was reduced and that the project now proposes 48 single‑bedroom units, with 67 parking spaces, and that the building square footage shown on the civil drawings differs from architectural drawings because of a planned courtyard. Beauregard confirmed the courtyard is enclosed on three sides and that the site will require raising the lower level above base flood elevation, which affects grade and ramping.
Board members pressed for a clearer demonstration that the existing masonry and roofed shell can be adaptively reused to support new floor plates and the proposed program. During the hearing, architect and project representatives described strategies — adding internal piers, placing new floor structure on footings, and minimizing bearing loads on existing exterior walls — but acknowledged no formal structural report had yet been submitted. The board asked for a short, signed narrative from the project’s structural engineer explaining the proposed structural approach and whether the existing masonry can be reused for the intended residential conversion.
The board also asked for additional technical and site information before a decision: a signed copy of the Rhode Island Housing letter (the version provided was emailed and unsigned), a sewer capacity analysis or confirmation from the Narragansett Bay Commission (the applicant said both sewer connection and ISDS septic options were under consideration and test holes for soils were scheduled), a landscaping plan, relocation of the dumpster off Baird Avenue if feasible, and an environmental/DEM update. The board asked staff to request a fire‑flow test or related assessment so the fire department can comment on access and available hydrant flow. The Community Housing Land Trust’s letter says the 10 affordable units will be monitored and that rents will be set consistent with a town‑approved AMI target (the board asked staff to confirm that the monitoring role will include annual reporting to state LMIH inventory).
Several neighbors voiced opposition at the meeting, citing traffic, on‑street parking constraints on the dead‑end Baird Avenue, the size and character of the proposed development, and uncertainty about the building’s structural condition. Town Council‑retained attorney Anthony Desisto urged the board to deny the current application and require the applicant to return with a fully developed master plan rather than continuing incremental changes; the board disagreed that the applicant’s revised submittal required re‑filing and decided to continue the hearing to allow the applicant to provide the requested documents.
The Planning Board continued the public hearing to its July 9 meeting and the applicant consented to an extension of the statutory review period to allow the board time to review materials. The board directed staff to solicit a fire‑flow assessment and to coordinate receipt of the requested documents for the next hearing.
