Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Street Abandonment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Neighbors object to Steele Street abandonment, petitioner vows to work on access and for‑sale duplex plan

Providence City Committee of Public Works · December 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At the Dec. 1 Providence hearing, neighbors warned that abandoning a portion of Steele Street would cut off access to rear yards and worsen parking; petitioner Dylan Connolly said he will work with abutters and plans a for‑sale side‑by‑side duplex with integral parking beneath the units.

The Providence Committee of Public Works heard public comment Dec. 1 on a petition by 61 Ridge LLC to abandon a portion of Steele Street southerly of Woodbine Street. Planning staff said Steele Street is an undeveloped paper street that provides access to abutting properties and a small parking area used by neighbors, and the City Plan Commission recommended abandonment with conditions similar to other items (abutter agreement, survey depiction, administrative subdivision, and easements).

Several nearby residents opposed the petition at the hearing. Nick Vasilov of 64 Evergreen Street told the committee, “Steel Street is currently the only way that I can access the back of my house, without entering private property,” and said York Street — suggested as alternate access in the petition — is currently impassable because of a fence and heavy overgrowth. Barbara Williams of 29 Woodbine Street said Woodbine Street is already congested and questioned where new residents or construction crews would park.

Dylan Connolly, the petitioner’s attorney, said he has been in touch with neighbors and will continue outreach. He submitted correspondence from an abutter (lot 314) in support and described the development concept: a side‑by‑side duplex with integral parking beneath the units, intended for home ownership rather than rental. Connolly said he would work to incorporate easements and protections for immediate neighbors, avoid building within 10 feet of property lines and handle appraisal or acquisition details as needed.

The tax assessor’s office said it has not assigned values and expressed concern about whether the proposed abandonment could landlock Lot 315; it asked for clearer parcel delineation before valuing the affected land. The committee urged the petitioner to continue neighborhood outreach and provide the requested survey and subdivision details. No vote was taken at the hearing.