EAST PROVIDENCE — A miswritten application resulted in significant pushback from neighbors and eventually led the Planning Board to delay a decision on allowing for the construction of a new residential unit on Fenmoor Street in the center of the city between Warren and Brightridge Avenues near Martin Middle School.

At its monthly meeting conducted virtually September 14 due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the board opted to table the application by property owner Alberto DaSilva to put what turned out to be a single-family home on a legally buildable portion of the parcel.

However, as noted by his attorney, Bruce Cox, of Slepkow, Slepkow & Associates, Inc., the initial application to the Zoning Board to do so misstated his client’s intentions, reading “two-family” rather than the planned single-family unit.

When made aware of the plan as written, however, other Fenmoor Street residents rallied against it, signing and submitting an application to the Planning Department noting their opposition. The residents also referred to numerous incidents at the property where police were called to respond at the existing multi-family residence.

Patrick Hanner, speaking on behalf of the Planning Department Monday, told the board Planning reached out to the East Providence Police Department for clarification and was provided with a lengthy list of calls beginning in 2011, but according Deputy Chief Major Chris Francesconi they predominantly took place in 2015 and prior and none since 2017.

Mr. Cox said the incidents between his client and tenants were a case of “bad apples” and that it “happens in some rental situations.” He continued, asserting the situation has changed, and referring to the reported police activity as “sins of the past, from 2011-2017, and quite prior are sins of the past.”

Mr. DaSilva, with the assistance of friend and local realtor Joao Pacheco, said he involved the police because his former tenant on the first floor of the existing residence wasn’t paying rent and there were also problems with the children who lived there. Since they left in 2017, Mr. DaSilva said he has not had any other difficulties with tenants.

Mr. Cox added the application should be approved because the intended single family house fits the area and that the original misstatement of a planned two family dwelling meant the neighbors’ petition had a “large flaw in it.” He also said among other concessions made by Mr. DaSilva in the plans to build another home, he has
agreed to put in sidewalks and curbing.

The commentary did little to assuage at least one Planning Board member, Eric Crook, who peppered both counsel and client throughout their presentation with questions and qualms about the application.

Mr. Crook, raising questions as well about the need to remove a large tree on the property, agreed with the assertion of Board chairman Michael Robinson that the body should not be policing the situation, “but when I see something that appears to be this egregious it’s concerning.”

Paraphrasing Mr. Robinson, the chair said the board’s charge in this instance was not about protecting the health and safety of residents, but solely about making a determination based on existing land use regulations.

Mr. Crook also referred to the police calls as an “endless list of visits” and asked Mr. Cox “Why did it take your client so long to respond?” Mr. Crook continued, saying it appeared the city was “spending more on police than taking in on property taxes” from Mr. DaSilva, adding, “this has been a very problematic situation.”

Assistant City Solicitor Dylan Conley interjected during the discussion, calling the late inclusion of the police data as a “rather unusual scenario.” He continued, saying he hadn’t ever been a part of a board deliberation that included a recommendation from the planning department then something about public health and safety from the police.”

He called it a “unique fact pattern” that was “relatively rare and somewhat odd” and offered to provide the board with a legal opinion “to make sure there’s no appellate liability.”

Board member Eric D’Aiello said he would “feel better with an advisory opinion.” And Mr. Crook, admitting his line of inquiry belied a “negative” connotation towards the submission, said he believed Mr. DaSilva “deserves a fair hearing” and adding “I think it’s more important we make the right the decision, not a hasty decision.”

Board member Burt Batty countered, saying “I think if the people knew that at the time, they would not have signed that letter, if they knew it was going to be a single family home.”

He, however, and the entire body eventually voted to table the matter to the board’s October 13 meeting upon receipt of the advisory opinion.

The Planning Board discussed and later unanimously approved a far less contentious application earlier Monday submitted by the David A. Amaral Family Trust to split a parcel on South Spruce Street.

The 18,880 square foot lot would be subdivided into two parcels, the existing 6,200 sf residence augmented with the construction of a 12,000 single family home with frontage on Woodland Avenue.

Please support your local news coverage

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the local economy - and many of the advertisers who support our work - to a near standstill. During this unprecedented challenge, we continue to make our coronavirus coverage free to everyone at eastbayri.com - we believe it is our mission is to deliver vital information to our communities. If you believe local news is essential, especially during this crisis, please consider a tax-deductible donation. 

Donate Here

Thank you for your support!

Matt Hayes, EP Post Publisher