PROVIDENCE – The developers of a proposed mixed-use building in the Fox Point neighborhood of the city that would include 75 residential units are back to the drawing board after a state judge struck down the project's preliminary plan.
Fox Point Capital LLC, a subsidiary of Providence Realty Advisors, proposed the project in 2023, calling for the demolition of existing buildings at 251 and 269 Wickenden St. to construct the new development. The proposed building would include two commercial units in addition to the 75 apartments.
But some area residents criticized the building's height and aesthetic impact on the neighborhood, as well as concerns about a lack of parking for apartment residents. Proponents, meanwhile, said the project would provide sorely needed housing amid ever-increasing demand and soaring rents.
Following contentious discussions, the Providence City Planning Commission approved an updated plan in October 2023, in addition to ongoing revisions that Fox Point Capital submitted through February 2025, according to court documents filed on Dec. 2.
But R.I. Superior Court Justice Jeffrey Lanphear struck down this approval in the December court filing.
Lanphear had previously dismissed a September 2024 appeal against the development, writing that the Providence Zoning Board's approval "while legally permissible, is troubling."
But in the recent filing, Lanphear ruled that "Fox Point’s apparent maneuver to bypass parking standards seems to undermine the intent of the zoning regulations."
The filing cites concerns including a zoning law that exempts lots under 10,000 square feet in size from city parking requirements. The Wickenden Street development's lot is 10,108 square feet, and therefore requires 75 off-street parking spaces for residents, according to the ruling.
The city zoning officer had granted the development an exemption by modifying a lot area requirement, but Lanphear ruled that the board's "reading of the laws empowering the zoning officer to grant sweeping modifications was clearly erroneous."
The judge also sided with appellants' concerns that the development does not comply with laws that would require two additional loading spaces.
Development appellants also said that, broadly, the "the preliminary plan relied on an unlawful modification; that the preliminary plan was approved despite not complying with a condition of master plan approval; that the preliminary plan does not comply with various ordinance provisions."
Additionally, they argued that the city "exceeded its authority when it granted a dimensional adjustment to height (of the building); and that the commission failed to make sufficient factual findings to support its conclusion approving the preliminary plan."
Jacquelyn Voghel is a PBN staff writer. You may reach her at Voghel@PBN.com.
If you want to understand why we have a housing crisis in RI just look to the objections to this project especially that of the judge. Any why does a !0,000 square foot building need 75 parking spaces when what the city should be striving for is a pedestrian friendly streetscape and the reduction in the number of cars clogging the streets. Also with a city that spreads over only 18 square miles, the best way to increase density is to go up within reasonable limits, Density in a city has its advantages so why encourage sprawl. It is density that promotes public transportation and good public transportation discourages the need for cars. This judge is rigidly concerned with rules and regulation and lacks the bigger picture view that permits deviance from those regulation for the public good.