Lupo v. Cmty. Works Rhode Island, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. PC 11-4454 |
| Parties | MENA LUPO v. COMMUNITY WORKS RHODE ISLAND, INC. CITY OF PROVIDENCE ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW BY AND THROUGH ITS CHAIR, MYRTH YORK OF PROVIDENCE, AND ITS MEMBERS MICHAEL EGAN, DANIEL VARIN, MS. UNKNOWN MARTINEZ, AND SCOTT WOLF, AND ITS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PETER CARLEVALE |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
DECISION
This matter is before the Court on the appeal of Mena Lupo ("Lupo" or "Appellant") from a decision by the Providence Zoning Board of Review ("Board"), dated July 18, 2011. The decision granted a use variance and dimensional variance to Community Works Rhode Island, Inc. ("Community Works") to convert a three-unit condominium to a five-unit condominium and, to allow paving of a proposed parking lot and two curb cuts to allow access to the parking lot. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 45-24-69.
Community Works is a non-profit community developer dedicated to providing affordable housing in Providence, Rhode Island. (Transcript of Providence Zoning Board of Review, July 14, 2011 (hereinafter "Tr.") at 4-5.) Community Works owns real property located at 514 Broadway in Providence, Rhode Island, otherwise identified as Lot 584 on the TaxAssessor's Plat 35 ("Property"). The Property is positioned in an R-3 zone, which allows the use of a building for up to three residential units as a matter of right. The Property contains an historic 6530 square foot single-family dwelling on a 17,534 square foot lot. Community Works purchased the property in January of 2011. (Tr. at 65.)
On or about March 25, 2011, Community Works applied to the Board for a use variance and a dimensional variance. Community Works sought a use variance to allow five condominium units—which would include two one-bedroom units, two two-bedroom units, and one three-bedroom unit—in an R-3 zone, pursuant to § 303 of the City of Providence Zoning Ordinance ("Ordinance"). Dimensional relief was sought to allow two curb cuts on opposite sides of the lot—specifically on Bainbridge Avenue and Tobey Street—to provide access to the two proposed parking lots, pursuant to §§ 704.2(B) and 704.2(D) of the Ordinance.
In compliance with § 45-24-41(b), the Board conducted a public hearing for Community Works's request for a use variance and a dimensional variance on July 14, 2011. During the hearing, the Board heard testimony from Carrie Marsh ("Marsh"), Executive Director of Community Works; Don Powers ("Powers"), principal of Don Powers Architects; Barbara Sokoloff ("Sokoloff"), President of Barbra Sokoloff Associates, which is a planning and development consulting firm; Thomas Sweeney ("Sweeney"), Sweeney Real Estate & Appraisal; neighbors; and local businesses.
Marsh provided an overview of the project and the financial challenges. She explained that Community Works is a non-profit community developer that partnered with Providence for this project. (Tr. at 5-6.) Providence requested Community Works's assistance with the project because Community Works had extensive experience renovating large scaled Victorian mansions, particularly in the Elmwood neighborhood. (Tr. at 6.) For the project, Providenceenvisioned four units of housing at 80% of median income, although Providence provided Community Works with application for a fifth unit if necessary. (Tr. at 6.) Providence offered $520,000 of the neighborhood stabilization program funding to assist Community Works with the project. (Tr. at 6.) Providence also offered $350,000 in HOME funding and $10,000 in lead funding and eligible funding to remove lead paint. (Tr. at 6-7.) In total, Providence committed $920,000 to the project. (Tr. at 7.) Further, Community Works received $127,000 in private grants. (Tr. at 7.)
Marsh explained that Community Works required a total of $1.7 million to complete the project. Even with the grant money, Community Works was short $670,000 to balance the budget. Community Works determined that to bridge the gap of $670,000 while also meeting the requirement to sell four units as affordable housing, it was necessary to build five units. (Tr. at 7-8.) The fifth unit would be sold above the 80% of median income at around $240,000 so the other four units could be sold around $110,000 to $120,000. (Tr. at 10.) Since Community Works is a non-profit organization, Marsh explained that it was critical for the five units to be approved if Community Works was to go forward with the project. (Tr. at 8.)
Powers, an architect who was qualified as an expert by the Board, testified as to the condition of the building. (Tr. at 13.) He explained that the building had many holes in the roof, leaving the interior exposed to the elements. (Tr. at 14.) He speculated that after another year, large parts of the building would be deteriorated to a point beyond repair. (Tr. at 14, 17-18.) Powers also testified about the preservation efforts for the landscape. In particular, Powers explained that the location of the seven parking spaces was determined in cooperation with the Providence Historic District Commission so as to preserve the historic landscape. (Tr. at 14-15, 18-19.) Finally, Powers discussed the interior site plan, which was also developed inconjunction with the Providence Historic District Commission so as to meet the Providence Historic District Commission's criteria in determining the scope of renovations. (Tr. at 16-17.)
Another expert, Sokoloff, testified about the project's financial feasibility of the project and its consistency with the Providence Comprehensive Plan. (Tr. at 20.) Sokoloff explained that the project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's effort to maintain the rich architectural history and residential character of the Federal Hill District. (Tr. at 20-21.) Sokoloff also discussed the development cost of the project. In particular, she explained that the estimated cost of $1,747,000 to $1,747,500 for the project included the acquisition price, environmental mediation, construction, contingency, and Community Works's developer's fee. (Tr. at 21-22.) She explained that if they lost any of the units, Community Works would be about $200,000 short on the entire project. (Tr. at 23.)
Sweeney, who was qualified as an expert real estate broker and appraiser, testified as to viability of the unit sales and the impact of the use variance and dimensional variance on the surrounding properties. (Tr. at 24.) He explained that the project was unique because it was a large historic residential building in very poor condition; the cost to renovate the projected was estimated to be $1.7 million dollars; and if the project was limited to three units, then the average unit cost would be $567,000. (Tr. at 27.) In considering the sales in the area, Sweeney testified that the highest sale price of a new unit over the past eighteen months in the Federal Hill and Broadway area was $328,000. (Tr. at 27.) Sweeney also testified that the surrounding area was mixed for both residential and commercial uses and that there were buildings throughout with more than five units. (Tr. at 28.) Sweeney opined that five units was the least relief necessary due to the poor condition of the building and the fact that no other developer came forward totake on the project. (Tr. at 29.) Ultimately, Sweeney concluded that the renovations would preserve the historic character and fix the current safety issues of the building. (Tr. at 29-30.)
Lupo, a neighboring property owner, testified against the project. (Tr. at 33.) Lupo was the coordinator of Friends of Broadway and member of Broadway Neighborhood Association. (Tr. at 33-34.) She explained that the last family to occupy the house was the Raposa's in 2006. Lupo explained that she went on a tour of the house in May of 2011, which was sponsored by Community Works, and, in her opinion, the Property was in good condition. (Tr. at 33, 41-43.) Lupo also testified about her concerns with traffic safety as a result of the new curb cut on Bainbridge Avenue. (Tr. at 35, 44-45.) Lupo speculated that there was a high risk that the Property dwellers would drive down Bainbridge, a one-way street, in the wrong direction to get to Broadway instead of driving the entire length of the street in the correct direction to get to Westminster. (Tr. at 35, 44.) Lupo explained that she was not experienced as a traffic engineer but that her speculations for traffic safety issues were based on her personal experience. (Tr. at 35, 44-45.) Finally, Lupo opined that allowing five units would set bad precedent as it would increase the density in the area and would be against the Comprehensive Plan. (Tr. at 37-38.)
After Lupo testified, neighboring property owners expressed their opinion on the project. Janice Hannert, a neighbor, testified that she was against the project and expressed her opinion that Community Works should be able to complete the project within the zoning requirements. (Tr. at 46.) James Hall of the Providence Preservation Society summarized that the Providence Preservation Society fully supported the proposal. (Tr. at 47-48.) Sara Emmenecker, a member of the Board of Directors of the West Broadway Neighborhood Association, testified that the committee viewed the project as a landmark. (Tr. at 48-49.) Malik Aziz, a member of the Community Works Board and a member of the Providence Economic Development Partnership,testified in his own personal capacity in support of the project. (Tr. at 50.) Shannon McHale, a neighbor, supported the project as it would improve the neighborhood. (Tr. at 54.) Robert Berrillo, also a neighbor, opined that the house should be a national landmark for the city and the state. (Tr. at 55.) Richard Sciolto, a neighbor, explained that Ron Raposa could not afford to maintain the house, and he hoped that the house will be preserved. (Tr. at 56-57.) Joseph McCarthy of Coldwell Banker of Residential Brokerage testified that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial