Case Number: PC-2017-5829

Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court

Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT

PROVIDENCE, SC.

PARAMOUNT DEVELOPMENT :
GROUP, LLC, PARAMOUNT :
APARTMENTS, LLC and NEW :
ENGLAND DEVEVELOPMENT :
RI, LLC by and through PETER J. :
FURNESS, ESQ. in his Capacity as :
Court Appointed Permanent Receiver :
Appellants :
:
v. : PC-2017-
:
DENNIS CHARLAND, Acting Chair, :
PAUL DURFEE, DEAN N. COSTAKOS :
ED RAMBONE, JOSEPH D. DAMICO :
And STEVE GADDES in their official :
capacities as Members of the Scituate :
Zoning Board :
:
Appellees :

COMPLAINT

1. This subject land development project, brought in the Town of Scituate, is

proposed to include 193 housing units on an historic mill site of which 118 are to be affordable

housing units. The Scituate zoning Board of Reviews decision denying the Appellants

application, despite the overwhelmingly and uncontradicted evidence in support, is a transparent

attempt to prevent the development and affordable housing in the town of Scituate.

2. This Complaint is filed under Rhode Island General Laws 45-24-69 as an

appeal to this Court by Appellants, Paramount Development Group, LLC and Paramount

Apartments, LLC (hereinafter the Appellants) from a decision of Appellee, Scituate Zoning

Board of Review (the Zoning Board), dated November 15, 2017, denying the issuance of a

special use permit requested by Appellants in an application for a special use permit and failing

to rule on the Appellants request for dimensional use variance in the same application (the

1
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.

Application) on property known as the Hope Mill and located at located at Tax Assessors Plat

5, Lots 1,114, 117 and Plat 3, Lot 8 in the Town of Scituate, Rhode Island and Tax Assessors

Plat 101, Lot 5 in the Town of Coventry, Rhode Island (Collectively the Property).

3. Appellant Paramount Apartments, LLC is the owner of real estate located at Tax

Assessors Plat 5, Lot 117 in the Town of Scituate, Rhode Island.

4. Attorney Peter J. Furness (the Receiver) of the law firm of Boyajain,

Harrington, Richardson & Furness, 182 Waterman Street, Providence, RI, 02906, was appointed

permanent receiver of New England Development, RI, LLC on August 31, 2010 (NED).

5. The Sole asset of NED is an abandoned historic mill complex known as Hope

Mill located at 1 Main Street, Scituate Rhode Island, specifically at Tax Assessors Plat 5, Lots

1 and 114 and Assessors Plat 3, Lot 8 in the Town of Scituate and Tax Assessors Plat 101, Lot

5 in the Town of Coventry (collectively referred to herein as NED Property).

6. The Receiver stands in the shoes of NED as the owner of the NED Property.

7. The Appellant, Paramount Development Group proposed to repurpose and

renovate the Hope Mill, an abandoned mill building located on the NED Property, into 118

affordable workforce housing units comprised of one and two bedroom units. In addition to the

mill conversion, Applicant proposed to build two new buildings creating approximately 75

market rate priced one and two bedroom apartments for a total of a 193 unit multi-family

development (the Project).

8. On or about March 21, 2017, the Scituate Planning Board voted unanimously,

after a public meeting, to grant conditional Master Plan approval (Approval) for Appellant,

Paramount Development Groups application for a Major Land Development Project to construct

the Project. The Project exceeded the maximum allowed density, having less than required land

2
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.

area, less than required lot width, less than required parking and exceedances on the maximum

height requirement in a General Manufacturing Zoning District located within the Hope Village

Overlay District.

9. A copy of the Approval is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A.

10. On or about May 1, 2017, the Hope Village Overlay District Committee voted,

after a public meeting, to unanimously approve (Overlay Approval) Appellant, Paramount

Development Groups application for alterations and renovations related to the Project in

conformance with the Town of Scituate zoning Ordinance Section 14.3 entitled Design

regulations for existing buildings.

11. On or about May 8, 2017, the Hope Village Overlay District Committee voted,

after a public meeting, to approve Appellants application for a waiver from Article VI, Section

14.4 (A)1 of the Town of Scituates Zoning Ordinance to exceed the maximum allowed 2,000

square feet footprint and construct two new 10,400 square foot buildings as part of the Project.

12. The Appellant also received the following approvals for the Project:

a) Rhode Island Department of Transportation Physical Alteration Permit Approval

on or about January 19, 2017;

b) Rhode Island Department of Environmental Managements Approval of an Onsite

Wastewater Treatment System Construction Permit dated January 26, 2017;

c) Kent County Water Authority Approvals for the Installation and Construction of

the water infrastructure dated January 25, 2017 and July 12, 2017;

d) Rhode Island Department of Environmental Managements Approval (with

conditions) of an Insignificant Wetlands Alteration Permit on or about January

24, 2017

3
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.

13. Appellees, Dennis Charland, Acting Chair, Paul Durfee, Dean N. Costakos, Ed

Rambone, Joseph D. DAmico and Steve Gaddes are named in this Complaint in their capacities

as members of the Scituate Zoning Board of Review (ZBR).

14. The ZBR held several hearings on the Application on August 1, 2017, August 29,

2017, September 27, 2017 and October 17, 2017.

15. The Applicant initially proposed 227 parking spaces for the Project but during the

course of the public hearings, Applicant amended their petition to increase the parking by 115

parking spaces for a total of 342 parking spaces for the Project.

16. Despite there being no qualified expert testimony offered to refute the testimony

advanced on behalf of the Appellants, on October 17, 2017, the ZBR unanimously voted to deny

Appellants request and Application for the special use permit.

17. On October 17, 2017, the ZBR Chair announced that since the ZBR denied

Appellants request for a special use permit it was not necessary to act on Appellants request for

dimensional variances contained in their Application. The ZBR failed to act on Appellants

request for dimensional variances contained in its Application.

18. The ZBRs written decision was posted and recorded by the Zoning Clerk on or

about November 15, 2017 (the Decision).

19. A copy the Decision is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B.

20. The ZBR made a decision that was in violation of law; in excess of its authority;

made upon unlawful procedure; effected by other error of law; clearly erroneous in light of the

evidence presented; and arbitrary and capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion based on

the record before it because the ZBR, among other deficiencies: (a) ignored the testimony of Ms.

Nicole Reilly and Kevin Morin, Appellants engineering consultants from DiPrete Engineering;

4
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.

(b) Mr. Edward Pimentel, Appellants zoning consultant; (c) Mr. Todd Brayton, Appellants

traffic consultant from Bryant Associates; (d) Ms. Tanya Carriere, Appellants project architect

from Khalsa Design; (e) exhibits introduced in support of Appellants experts testimony at the

hearing; (f) Mr. JR Robinson and Mr. John Chevalier, the Towns own witnesses and Chief and

Deputy Chief of the Hope/Jackson Fire Department; (g) Mr. Lawrence P. Filippelli, Ed.D.,

Superintendent of Scituate Schools; (h) Mr. Donald Delaere, Chief of Scituate Police

Department; (i) the exhibits introduced at the hearing in support of the Towns own witnesses;

and (j) the Towns own peer review traffic consultant, Mr. James Cronan, Crossman

Engineering. All of the foregoing testimony supported the Appellants application and did not

support the findings and decision of the ZBR.

COUNT I
(Zoning Board Appeal, R. I. G. L. 45-24-69)

21. Appellants, as aggrieved parties in interest, file this appeal to this Honorable

Court from the Decision of the ZBR on the grounds that its Decision is unlawful and illegal for

the following reasons.

1.) The ZBRs Decision and actions are in violation of the Boards constitutional,

statutory and ordinance authority.

2.) The ZBRs Decision is in excess of the authority granted to said Board by statute

and ordinance.

3.) The ZBRs Decision was based upon unlawful procedures in violation of

Appellants rights to due process and equal protection of the laws.

4.) The ZBRs Decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and

substantial evidence of the whole record.

5
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.

5.) The ZBRs Decision is contrary to the law and the evidence.

6.) The ZBRs Decision is arbitrary and capricious and constitutes a clear abuse of

discretion.

WHEREFORE, Appellants, Paramount Development, LLC and Paramount Apartments,

LLC respectfully requests that this Honorable Court review the decision of the Scituate Zoning

Board, and provide the following relief:

1.) Issue a stay of the Decision and of any further proceedings pursuant to the

Decision pending further order of this Court.

2.) Reverse and overrule the Decision.

3.) Enter judgment herein in favor of Appellants as to its appeal.

4.) Award Appellant its attorneys fees for the prosecution of this Complaint pursuant

to the Equal Access to Justice for Small Business and Individuals Act under

Rhode Island General Laws 42-92-1 et seq.

6
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.

5.) Award Appellant such other and further relief as this Court may deem reasonable

under the circumstances.

Appellants,
Paramount Development Group, LLC
Paramount Apartments, LLC and New
England Development RI, LLC by and through
Peter J. Furness Esq. in his Capacity as
Court Appointed Permanent Receiver

By their Attorneys,

PARTRIDGE SNOW & HAHN LLP

/s/ Jeffrey H. Gladstone

Jeffrey Gladstone (#3286)
/s/ Christian F. Capizzo
Christian F. Capizzo (#6655)
40 Westminster Street, Suite 1100
Providence, RI 02903
Tel: (401)-861-8200
Fax: (401-861-8210
jhg@psh.com
cfc@psh.com

RICHARDSON, HARRINGTON & FURNESS, INC.

/s/ Peter J. Furness

Peter J. Furness (# 3608 )
182 Waterman Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02906
Tel: (401) 273-9600
peter@rhf-lawri.com

December 4, 2017

3204941.1/15596-2

7
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.

EXHIBIT A

Approval
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.
:}tar: ~'is,+c 1111i;}(.,11.f{,)~w.
ti t ~,'..

~1~4~ ~I Z/fit
~`
h, ~ ~~

.;

~
~~7~ir-~' ~`~~`,L
~

'Torxm-'of ~eituate
P1~nn~i~t~:B'oaxd
I7ecisiv~ ~I.~tter

~~t:C~ Z~y ~~~~

Farairaount.Deve~Dp~ten~~Groiip
C/Q ~cliat~d.Ae~osas,Presic~ez~t
165Htii~t Road.
C~e~sf~xd, NIA 0~8

die: O'WI~iER.; ~3oyaj~iz~, Hairi~.gtor~.xl2;i~ck~a~dson.& Fux~asss~{R~oei~ve:rship)

LOCATIOS+~: 1:51V~~i~n S#xee~Taa Assessor's ~'laf: 3,.Lot:8-1'1~#: ~,Loft: 1, ~l ~4 ~c 1 Z7
.''LI~A~1`1`: ~'axama~rit bevelvpmerit.Crrn~tp

Dear fir. r~aRosas:

T~is~ ~olla~ing ~s the decisx~;~ ~o~n your applXc~tiQr~ fox1Vlast~x I?~an irovaX ~afa 1V~a,~or~~:as'!d Ae~!~Xopment
Project to ~oYjstrtiet ~ .~.9~-unit t~eszdential ~onc~o;f itim csamp~e~ ~~xcaecYing~ tie ma~a.~nutz'~ al~ow.ed
density; with less khan the rsguxxei~ lanc~~~area, less that ~t~tE xe~~i~red lot =width, Xess than tie required
;~arki~g .and.:e,~~~ing. #Iie maxilniitin~ 'lie4g1~t ~egti7ur~siief~t ori~ .a. ~3~ ~-1:acre ~Sarcel in s Cenezal
:Manu~aciu~i~g:~,M~ 2oningDist~ict~located v.~~in~f~n.~.I~gpe V~llag~;<Ok$r~~~y,DistrGt,

Af~er;~o~~l~txdn ~~ a~:pu~ilxc info~ation~~ greeting ~.r:v.~~uich na~t~~e was .ssrye~i. ;rid:a ~e~ord Vvas kept,
~~~ Scz~.ia~a :~~ax~ni~~ B.oard~ ~tak~ng ~in~t~. .e~nsict~atia~ ~i~s :I~id~vl~dg~ and e~r~ertise, taking into
abusiieira.~~~~ a~,l ~~ t~:e ~e~r~sentaibfls ani~ px$serita~ons.~mal'e~:a~'t~~e~~~~~i~ i~n~c~rniatiori~l .naeet:`ing ~nc~
~~r :cor~~i~lexafia~a b~ tl~~ ,~Qlldvu~zxg rec~tiir~ ~iu~c~ cgs as ~~~se~,t~l. %~ #fie ~TQ~;' of .~oitua#e .~i~ladi~.~sioz~
and ~.,arR~ Da~elo~mesit.Regvlations S~etzon~ 14: 8 ~~~;

X~ ,~aah :and :dev~loptnent or~~snb~ivksian .shill .b~ :e~nsiskant ~i~ x~e~~r~u~rezn:QnY~ ~otlte ~~i~af~
aCoxr~,pxe~iens~~c~ Gozn n~i~ .Mari ~nct sal ~~~~is~dc~i~~y~ a~ldir~ss~ t~i~` ~s~t~'s:~v~ie~'e ~the~~.;~r'ra.~ ~e
~ncoinSi~t~hci~~;

ti} :a~. lgfi:~ th~i 1~~,~d~ve~~p~en~ ox ~u:~~~v3s~a~ skall.~c,~iz~brin to t~~ standa~c~s and prav~i$xor~~ o
. th~S.csi~ua#s:Zcrni~,~~:Oxdi~ta~~e;. .

3) .T}~ere wxw"il b~.no.sigui~ean~z~ega#~ve env~~cozur~e~i~a~ ~g~et~.~om4 th~,~~'i?p~~~c~:de~e~;opm~~~;

..
4j T'~ie larii~ t1e~vLlo~ment.of.$ubdirrisiant,:as.~xoposed :wsll .nQ~ ~ze~ult n<#,he ~r~at~bb ~f~i_ndi~ xdizal lets
~itih :suer. ~~'ys,~e~ eon~~raxnts t~.t .b,~7~"mi~ bn:.t~,ose 1o~s a~cord~zi~:tb: pert~n~,t r~g~Iafi~ons and
buz~dii~g s~ii~laxz~~~ vvouid.~e i~npzaetzaat~~e~
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.
!ii~~f :: r:?i~` "^:~'' ~ .`. .iii

5) All proposed Land dave~o~rm$nts and all subdivisioza lots shall ha~~e adequafe and pex~manant
access to a public street; . .,~
. '~
G) each Iand developr~ae~nt ox subdivis~on~ shall provide ~or the safe circulation of pedestrian and
vehicular tr ai~c, fox ~:dequate 5t~'FaCB~ W8tiB7 run-ofF, for surtable ~ building sites, and far
preservation of natural, t~istorzcal or cult~~ral featux~s that contribute to the attracti~vc~uuess o the
comrnun~ty; and

7} The desxgnt and lacafiou of streets, building lots, utisit~ies, drainage improvements and ofher
zznpro~vemet~ts in each land development ox subr~ivision d
shall mxni~nize looda~g an soil eroszon.

8) Site planning and design sha11 ba in conformance with.fhe I.,ovv Iinpaat Devel~pmenx Manual as
maybe ap~licablo t4 the pzojeot, fi he z'egulations and/or as deterrl~inedby #h~ k~lan ~ozr~missio~.

The Planning Bard voted unanimously fi o grant a conditional Master Plan approw~I vv.~ the stipulatio~
t hat alt agencies sha11 approve,

Sincerelsr,

~~~
re ery H`a~saz~, Claaiz~naan
Scituate ~'larrxing Board

i6l3Ft ~i ~; f ~;t,~n;;ta

f~SSlY .~~.`~.~i'~;
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.

EXHIBIT B

Decision

3206930.1 /MTBA-CFC
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M. Dr~~- NGrntt ~ ;?ii;L7iif~~,n_i'?1h9
~.oaE: 677 F'ay~ w 21

TOWN OF SCITUATE
ZONING 130ARD OF REVIEW
MEMORANDUM OF DGCISIOIV
1+OR RECORDING IN LAND EVIDENCE RECORDS PURSUANT TO CI;NERAL LAWS 45-24-61 (B)

Owner of premises: ~oyajaiu, I-lari7ngton, Richardson ~. Furness (In Receivership) K Paramount Apartments; LLC

A p licant: Paramount Development Group

Street address of premiss: 1 Main Street

Assessor's Mau: Plat 3 Lot 8 C1se #1200

Plat 5 Lots 1, 1 14, 1 17

Date of Decision; October l7, 2017

Summ~ry of Decision: The [3oard vo(ed to:

Gr1nt
7~ _ Deny
X Special Use Permit to have a 193-unit multi-family residential development on a property consisting of
ap}~roxrmately 32,22 acres, Article I1, Section 2.3
Use Variance
_ Deviation (Dimensional Variance)

'I~he following is the decision on yotn application for a special use permit with dimensional variai7ces as r~quiied in
Coning Article [[, Section 2.3, "Multi-t~~iliily chvelling sh~uctwes," to authorize a proposed 193-unit multi-family
development. Along with the requested special use permit, the project also requires several dimensional variances
including; less than the required lot size, more tl~a the allowed density, less than the required lot ~~~idth, less than the
required i'ront yard setbacks, higher than allowed building height, less than the required number of parking spaces,
less than the required setbacks f'oi~ parking and less than the required setback of a sewerage disposal ('acility from a
water-body in a General Manufachiring Zoning Dishict,

rafter completion of a series of public hearings for 4vhich notice was duly served and a record ~~~as kept beginning on
n ugust I, 2017 and continuing to August 29, 2017, September 27, 2017 and concluding on October 17, ?017, the
Town of Scituate Zoning Board of Review, tahin~ into consideration its knowledge and expertise and after
considering III oPthe representations, presentations, testimony and evidence made during the several pizblir hearings
m~l<es the I~>Ilo~ving findings of tact:

FINDINGS OF FACT

A 13cr extensive discussion and deliberation, khc: Zoning Board of Revicw of the '1'orv~~ of Scituate, Ripon a duly made
mo(ion and which was seconded, voted five in favor and zero opposed to adopt the follo~~~ing findings of fact on this
petition at a duly held meeting on October 17, 2417.

I) Th<U the proposal is to establish 193 multi-~~mily residential dtivelling units on the subject property. The
unit coiuits and locations are proposed, as follo~s:

L Phase
131d I and Bld 2 58 du (Existing Mill main shucture)

II. Phase it
Bid 3 and Bld 4 60 du (1,oaming and other ancillary structures)
Bld 6 and E31d 7 Common Area, and Bid 9 Museum

111. Phase 111

Bld 14 and [31d IS 75 du (T~~~o ne4v structures 10,400 sq ft each)
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M. Do~~ hlum~ n ~' iii'7ijtU]~)'?~.b9
Faol:~ 677 F'c~s~~ :?:?

2) That the proposed use is specifically authorized in the RRW 60/80 Rural QZesidentiai/Water) zone and the
M (General ManuTacturii~g) zone upon issuance oFa Spacial Use Permit(SUP) according to Art 71, Sec, 2
District Use EZegulalions, Sub-Sec. 3 Multif'~mily D~a~elling Structures.

3) That the density requirement is X10,000 S.P. /DU for developments in excess of thirty-five (35) dwelling
units in accordance with nrt. Ili, Sec 3(5) of the- Scituate Loving Ordinance Por a tot11 required area oi'
7,72 ,000 S.F, and that the developer is proposing a density of 7,27? S.F, /DU approximately 18 percent
of the area that is required in the Zoning Ordinance for this multifamily development.

~) That the site is comprised of slightly more than 32 acres and placing 193 d~~velling units an this area of land
waulcl constitute a density of approximately 6 d~~~e,lling units pec acre, which is fir in excess of the standard
prescribed in the To4vn's Zoning Ordinance.

~) '1'l~at~ Use pattern of developme~it in the surrounding area is generally rural in character with lo~v densi~j~
development other than the associated mill housing located ~3rimarily al~mg Mill Street.

6} "That the surrounding neighborhood is an historic mill village primarily developed for single and two family
dwellings on individual tats of various sizes accessed via Mifl Street, a nai7~ow roadway with little to no on-
site or on-street parking available.

7) "['hit P1~3se (and [I proposals involve rehabiliCating existing mill structures on the property in keeping with
the present pattetn of development,

8) That Phase 111 of the development ~roposll seeks to establish two (2) new Irvc (5) story 52,000 S.r.
buildings, 68 feet in height with parking beneath, more than double the tnaxim~m~ 30' height allowed by
the Zoning Ordinance.

9) That the proposed i'hase ltl buildings are out of character with the existing mill complex and do nc>t mirror
the design quality, materials or sense of the siting of the predecessor, distracting from appreciation of
existing architecture tend muddling the perception of historic se~tClement patterns of 1-lope Village, despite
approval of the proposed design by the Hope Village Overlay Committee.

10) Thal the applical~t ~~vas questioned by tl~e Board on several occasions whether the proposed new buildings
could be reduced in size, se11e or dimension and on each occasion the applicant refused on the basis that
the project ~a~ould vat work in that 4vay.

I)That the LBR (rods the overall density of the proposed development is excessive in comparison with the
development density of the existing village and liirther tulds that the magnitude and intensiky of the
proposed development is out of scale pith thc; character of the sunounding area.

12) 'That the Zt3R finds the t~vo buildings proposed in Phase Ili, although designed to preseri( a similar
~ppe~rance ro the existing mill shuctures, to be completely out-of-scale ~yith the existing t-lope Mill
property and out of character ~~~ith of the surrounding area which is generally rural in character 4~~ith low
density development, 'l~l~e 7BR also tiinds that the size, sc11e, configuration and location of the proposed
ne~v buildings will impair the character of the mill prope~~ty and constitute a density of development mare
appropriate in an urban setting and not compatible tivith the character of the village.

1 3) That the proposed development requires 386 parking spaces while the applicant initially proposed 227
parking spaces which constitutes approximately 59 percent of the required spaces. During the course vl'
the public hearings, the applicant amended the petition to provide 342 p~uking spaces which is still less
thin the 386 perking spaces required.

1 ~4) That the applicant's traffic engineer did not speci~caliy address tl~e parking relief and that the ZBR hired a
traffic engineer to perform a peer review of the traffic and ~~arking impacts associ~~ted with the proposal.
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M. Da~~ NurnN ~ 7iEi.7~.~p~:n:~?169
~aQku Er77 f~'n~e: ~>3

The Neer review traffic engineer provided an opinion that the 342 parking spaces proposed by lf7e applicant
con'orms to the Institute of Traffic Engineers ("ITE") parking spaces per dwelling ~u~it standards.

S) That the 7BR believes the proposed project is unique to Scituate in that tl~e 1~oard considers the
development to he an iu~ban development proposed in a rural commiu~ity. As a result, the LBR is not
persuaded that the parking spaces provided by the applicant will be sufficient to prevent spillover parking
fi~am occurring into the neighborhood, thereby causing disruption and further congestion on the village
area's street system, as urban ec~mmunities provide alternate hanspor[ation options (i,e, taxi cabs and
h~ansit} to relive tl~e parking burden which are not available in rural Scituate. Further the ZBR is of the
opinion that urban communities may also provide ample on-street parking and oft-site parking options 1'or
rent or lease including surface parking lots and structured parking garages; none of which are avlilable in
this area.

C)`I,hat the peer review traffic engineer found tl~e North Road and Main Sheet intersacti~n, which is Ro~ge
1 1 S and 1 16, had levels of service F under existing travel conditions that would worsen under the proposed
developments' external impacts to that street system, The engineer found an increase in wait times of 37. 4
seconds or 6~om 61.3 seconds to 98.7 seconds, which is an increase of increase of60 percent,

7 7) `That the peer review traffic engineer also found Neat the Main Street and Hope Furnace Road intersection
had levels of service D and L which ~~~ould also worsen fiom external impacts from the proposed
developm~n~. The I'M peak at this intersection would be recl~~ced from a D ro an E with an increased wait
time oP 7.2 seconds, a 20 percent increase, Ind the AM Peak would have an increased wait time of 5,.5
seconcJs or a 14 percent increase, No traffic mitigation measures were offered or proposed by the; applicant
to off-set these external negative impacts in the surrotmding village community. The testimony of Mr.
Cronin oi' Grossman Engineering indicated an average ncea impact that traffic would increase 4-7 percent
overall in h~afiic volume from the planned development,

1 8) The ZI3R finds that the ~~egativo iraftic impacts ~ssoeiated with the development o~~ the village are not
acceptable, will lead to traffic movement delays, will increase the risk and frequency of vehicular accidents
and since no mitigation measures were offered by the applicant ~vou(d ease an increased risk to the public's
health, safety and ~~~elPare.

19) That the Tvwn of Scituate Comprehensive Plan contains several citations that could be considered to be
contrary co the project including the Cultural Resourczs Element, the Housing; Element and the Economic
Development Element as f~llo~vs;

Cultural Resources dement

N-3.1.6.2 Tlrrents to Rurrrl Clraracter: The integration of new and historic residences constitutes
mother threat to r~ual Scituate's character. Often sited close to historic structures, ne~v housing
frequently does not mirroa the design quality, materials or sensitive siting of its predecessors,
detracting from appreciation of existing architecture, and ul~iddling the perception of historic
settlement patterns.

The proposed new st~uct~u~es do not represent the historic settleiuent paCtern of the village ~s the
new buildings represent a much larger more dense development of the site that would be out of
scale and character with the mill complex end the development pattern of the suiTounding village
neighborhood.

II-3.1.6.3 Tltrenis iv Y~i/lage Chrrructer: The Village of Hope provides another interpretation of
1 9th cc;ntury New L;ngland in its nearly intact illustration oi'a mill village, housing and associated
development. The f-lope Mill Complex, including a 1840's stone textile mill and subsequent
additions,..reprasents aliving testimony to tl~e state's industrial architect~n'e and histoiy...Che mill
should he examined f'or use potential..,should it fall into disuse. While they retain the architectural
styles and scale of the original settlement, many of the residential neighborhoods in Hope Vil(agc
are threatened by deterioration. Incentives should be sought fior rehabilitating these slructuies and
their associated property in a manner that will not disrupt the cohesive whole of the Villag4.
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.
~Gt~k< G~T'7 F'a~e; ~r~rr

The proposed new shuctures are aut oP size and scale ~~ith the character of the village, would
result in increased density and therefore increased traffic and the need Por additional parking while
the applicant seeks relief to have less than the required parking. TI7is combination would disrupt
the c~hesive~less of the Village by increasing the potential foi on-street parking and increased
haPfic.

N-.4.1.6.4. Inc~renrertl~rl Deve/vpfrtertl: Development +vhich introduces uses wit}iout regard for
neighborhood character, or is otherwise unevordinated with actual connnunity needs is overall
detrimental to the commanity's character. As a result of such "uncoordinated" growth, many
historic buildings can become separated fiom the envi~anment~l context in which they aie besi
appreciated, creating visual intrusions or conflicting uses that devalue historic properties and
negatively effect quality of(ife,

The proposed i~ew structw~es are much larger in size and scale that the existing mill complex Ind
would result in a visual inh~usion into the currznt historic landscape conflicting with the existing
historic mill buildings and surrounding village neighborhood.

}Cousin Element
C-3, 1 Coals and Policies: Through zoning, slight modifications of that density level can be made
to encourage t~vo objectives: t) the production of affordable housing units as part of private sector
subdivisions; and 2) subdivision siting which is respectful of rural character. Therefore, it is
recommended that. Tlu~aughout undeveloped areas of the Town, allo~~J incenfivcs of density
increases and flexible siting to developments which protect rural character ar include affordable
housing.

While the. p~~oposed project calls for an affordlble housing component, Housing Llement Goals
and Policies E-3 calls for afCord~ible housing to be contained in subdivisions by way of density
increases in developments that are rural in character. The praposcd project is contrary ro G-3 in
that is proposing a high density urban style nuilti-family development and not single-P~mily
subdivision that is r~u~al in character,

The policies

1. Create ne~v affordable units in accordance with the land use policies.
As his been indicated, this would occur by amending the zoning 111o~vin~ ~ density bonus. The
additional units created by the density bonus could be sold at below market rates to local
households. The cost of the lot is lowered because the Town has required a lowered price from the
developer in exchange for granting a density bonus, thlt is, more ~~nits than normally allowed by
zoning. This technique shottid be encouraged along RIFTA bus routes to service h~ansit-dependent
residents.

Policy 1. Above, calls far affordable housing to be encouraged along RIPTA bus routes. The
proposed high density development is not located along a RIPTA bus route and has no ability to
access h~ansit.

I;-5.2,4 Summary of Need: Scituate's ability to meet its housing needs must be concenhated in
hvo areas;

1 Zoning changes c~~hich provide inducements for the creation of affordable housing units by
)
private building developers.

2) Proactive steps such as continuation o1' the regional Western Rhode ISI~111CI HOt11C Repair
Program and creation of ~ regional Community Land 'Trust in cooperation with several adjoining
communities and applicable stale agencies. The creation of multi-family housing in Scituate is not
feasible, on one hand <~wing to the conshaints of watershed protection and I~ek oC seFvers, on the
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.

other hand due to dif(icull to satisfy density requirements in existing zoning. White tlre,re may be
some buildings suitable for limited canversio~ls to three or more housing units, including
commercial/industrial shuctures aid mill buildings, no sites are speci[ically recom3nended since
they lack the critical environmental compatibility required. The proposed zoning would require
such an environmental evaluation as ~t prerequisite to 1ny exceptions. It would be ideal to locate
larger scale multi-family developments in areas a tar distance fiom reservoir watershed protection
zones and/or in areas with sewer and water, or in areas H~ith the potential for sever and water
expansion,

Policy 2. Above, states that multi-family housing is not feasible due to the lack of severs to
support such projects and states that the ideal 1<~cation ~~~ould he far distlnee from ~vatei~shed
protection zones and/or in a~eas with public sewer and water. The proposed project is ~ilhin the
watershed and does not have public se~~rer. Tl7e applicant is proposing an On-Site Wasie~vater
Treatment System (OWTS).

economic Development
F- 1.0 Introduction: F- l.0 Introduction
Scitu~~te essentially is a commuter town with between 80 and 9U percent of its employable
residents working in other parts oFthe Providence Metropolitan urea.

F-1.0 states thai 8U -90 percent of Scituate; residents commute to other pants of die state to work.
'fhe proposed development would introduce l93 new residential units 4vith less than the required
parking into the village, 80-90% of which would be conunuting to ~~~ork. The proposal would
result in an i~~fllix of vehicles into the area c~usi7ig lraPfic congestion and due to inadequate
p<~rlcing increased spillover oirstreet parking.

I mplementation
L,.2.1 Scituate Comr~rehensive Plan Implement~tio~i Chart:
Increase the supply ofhabitabie lffordab(e units.
"...Subdivision Regulations to permit 1~/u density increase in subdivisions of l0 or more units far
the inclusion of affordable ~u~its." '

L.2.1 allows for a ten (10%) percent density increase to allow for affordable housing. The
proposed development far c~ceeds the 10%allowance for affordable housing.

[3ased on the adopted findings of tact, tl~e ZBR applied the facts to the standards of review For the issuance of
special use permit. A use designated. as Special Use in Article Il or else~~~heie in this ordinance shall be permitted by
the ~o~rd follo~~~ing a public hearing if such use meets the following requirements;
A. It will be compatible; with the neighboring I~tnd Uses,
The pro~~osed use is specifically authorized in Art, II, Sec, 2 District Use Regulations, Sub-Sec. 3
M ultifamily Dwelling Structures. However, the density requirement is 40,000 S,T. /DU for developments
in excess of thirty-five (35) dwelling units in accordance with Art, II[, Sec 3(5) of the ScituateLoning
Ordinance for 7 total required are~i of 7,720,000 S.P, for the proposed use end that the developer is
proposing a density of only 7,272 S.P. /DU approximately 18 percent of the area required in the Zoning
Ordintince for this multifamily development. 7'l~e ZBR finds that the use to establish 193 dwelling units ou
the subje.cl property is out of scale with die ch~tractec of the surrounding village end the rest oP the
community. The Z[3R tinds that the uses' intensity and its impacts would. not be compatible with the
neighboring village,

Further, the t~vo buildings proposed in Phase III are considered out-of-scale with the existing f-Iope Mill
property and o~rt of character with of the surrounding area which is generally rwal in character with lo~v
density developient. The size, scale, configuration and location of the proposed iie~v buildings will impair
the character of the mill property and constitute a density of development more appropiiata in an urban
setting and not compatible with the characl~r of'the Hope Mill village,
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M. I~cfr_ hlumn ~ ?~J1`l~'l~1ptla?:lh~
~'~4U~~ ~r~~ H~~F9td: ~~

Q. It ~~~iil not create a nuisance in the neighborhood,

The ZBR finds that the external impacts from spillover parking from the proposed development into the
village and the increased degradation of the village's haftic circulation and safety constitute ~ nuisance to
the neigl~boihooci.

The Board considers the developrnet to be an urban development proposed in ~ ru~~a) community, As a
result, the ZBR is concerned thak the parking spaces provided by the applicant evil) not be sufficient to
prevent spillover packing from occurring in the neighborhood thereby causing disruption and Further
congestion on the village area's sheet system. As urban communities provide alCernate transpartafion
options (i.e, taxi cabs and transit) to relive the parlci~ig burden, these options Co off-set such impacts are not
avail~bfe in r~nfil Scihiai'e. Further the ZBR is of the opinion th~rt urban communities may alsp provide
ample an-sheet parking and off-site parking options for rent or lease including sm~face parking tuts and
structured parking garages none of which are available in rural Scituate.

The proposed parking spices are insufficient Yo prevent off'site spillover into the village community and
4~~i11 lead to congestion and make passage ofvehicles, including public safety emergency response vehicles,
compromised and dangerous.

C. ft vdill not hinder the futine divelopmeni oPthe town,

The ZBR finds that the proposed development will have negative impacts on the village, including visual
impacts, traffic circulation and parking issues which may hinder the future development oi' the Hope
V i 11 age.

D. It will be in conformance pith the purposes and intent of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance.

The ZBR finds that the proposal is otit of scale with the land use policies contained in the "T'own's
comprehensive community plan. Although a!'furdable Housing is proposed as a pa~~t of the project, the
negative externalities assaci~ted with the project on the village and Town's resources outweigh that
ofifeiing. Overall, the project is not in conformance ~~~ith the ptuposes and intent of the com~xehensive plan
and zoning ordinance,

7'he LBR also finds that. the Tnwn of Scituate Comprehensive Plan contains several citations that could be
considered to be contrary to the project including the Cl~ltural Resources F.,leme~it, the Housing Element
znd Ule economic Development Element ~s follows:

Cultural Resources Clement

H-3.1.6.2'Threats to Rural Cl~ar~cter

H-3.1.6.3 Ttreats tv Village Character
H-3.1.6.4. Incremental Development

Housing Element

E-3. 1 Goals and Policies

G-5.2,4 Summary of Need

Economic Development

F- 1.0 Inhoduction

[3aseci on the adopted tindin~s of fact, applied to khe standards of review for the issuance of a special use permit, the
LBR, on a duly made motion io deny the special use permit which was seconded, voted five in favor end zero
opposed to de~~y the special use pe~~mit (M4mbers burfee; Gacldes, Rainbone; D'Amico and Chariand voting to dey
the special use permit).
Case Number: PC-2017-5829
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court
Submitted: 12/4/2017 5:36:41 PM
Envelope: 1317350
Reviewer: Carol M.
F`,c~~k= b77 F'age: `~7

The Chair of the ZI3R then announced that since the Board voted to deny the special use pe~7nit, it was not necessary
t o act pn die dimensional variances contained in the application for relief.

Respectfully submi

~~''~r G~'<l
Uenni~Charla}~~ ,Vice Chair
Scituate Zond~'g BoarcJ of Review

CERTIF(CA"T'ION OIL SERVICE

I, thu undersibned, do hereby certi('y that this decision was poster( and served ptusuaut io the relevant requirements of the R.I.
General I_,a~~~s ~45-24(~9(A) on tha ~~~~~ c>I'Novemt~ar, 2U 17.

Clerk, Zoni~t,~ Bo~'~ ofi Review

Doted: /~/5/ j

C'oE~ies mailed or delivered lo:

I) Applicant and their f\ttorney oi' Record
2) Zoning Inspector, Ta~a~n of Scituate
3) ~~ssoci:ite Director
Division of Pi~innin~/01'fice ol'AAunicipal Aft<iirs
12I (~a~rirtmcnt oFAdtninislr~tlion
One Capitol 1-lill
Providence, RI 02908-5873
4) Copy posied in the Office of the'I'own Clerk pursuant to GL 45-24-69 (A)
5) William Harsch, Esquire

NIINUTGS O~ THIS MTETtNG A~~niL~f3LF, A`I` Qf'FIC:I~ (1F Tl-IG TOWNCLARK.

CCRTII~'ICATION O~ RECORDATION

1. the widcrsigned, do hereby certify that this decision ti vas posted rind recorded in the "Co~n of Sci[ulte Lana Evidence Records
p ursuant to the relevant requirements ofi the R.I. General Laws ~1a-24-G9 (A) on the '~ 5 day of November, 3017.

Margaret ong, To~~m C ei

I;kCE:SVEq ~'0~, kLC:gFil)

h1U~J ~.5r '?~:~17 a~ i~js1~; Ahl
I~ar~r~E iI I_urr~
T'b41N GLEi.iiK