An Analysis of the

Hope Mill Application

Case #1200 before the Scituate Zoning
Board of Review
Prepared by Ashley V. Sweet, Professional Planning Consultant
September 22, 2017
Introduction

Hope Mill Concerned Citizens (HMCC) has retained my professional land use planning and
zoning services to evaluate the proposal submitted by Paramount Development Group
(applicant) for the Hope Mill property located at One Main Street in Scituate. The proposal itself
is to convert the existing Hope Mill building in residential housing and construct two (2)
additional 5-story new buildings on the site, also for residential housing for a total of 193
housing units on approximately 32 acres. This property directly abuts the Pawtuxet River on 2
sides, and sits on somewhat of a peninsula into the river.

In order to properly evaluate this proposal and determine its appropriateness for the Town of
Scituate and the Village of Hope, I have thoroughly reviewed the submission materials by the
applicant, available transcripts of previous meetings of the Zoning Board and Planning Board
related to this application, as well as the Town of Scituates Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive
Plan, Five-Year Update (the Plan), Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, Low and
Moderate Income Housing Plan, all as most recently amended. Additionally, I toured the Village
of Hope and met with many residents that live within close proximity to the mill site.

The applicant is seeking a Special Use Permit (SUP) and dimensional variances from the Zoning
Board for this land development proposal. These dimensional variances are on the order of none
this Town has ever seen, and of the magnitude that this professional consultant has never
witnessed in almost 15 years of professional planning and land development. One thing it
appears almost everyone agrees upon, is that the Hope Mill is in dire need of redevelopment. The
residents of Hope Village, for the most part, are not in opposition to the renovation of this
historic building. They support the concept of the revitalization of a blighted old historic building
being brought back to life in a thoughtful and sensitive manner that benefits all involved. The
Town of Scituate adopted zoning regulations and a Comprehensive Plan that gave some
forethought to this very issue and provided guidance for this scenario. The Towns Low and
Moderate Income Housing Plan did so as well. Unfortunately, this proposal by the applicant
meets NONE of those plans and is in violation of them in considerable measures. The remainder
of this report looks at each the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and the Low and
Moderate Income Housing Plans requirements and standards and measures them against the
applicants proposal and provides detailed reasoning as to why this project is not supported by
any of the Towns guiding land use documents.

Consistency with the Zoning Ordinance

As stated in Article I, Section 1 of the Zoning Ordinance the zoning regulations and districts set
forth were made in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan of
the Town of Scituate. Specifically, the section states

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 2

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
 The ordinance shall be construed in a manner that will further the
implementation of, and not be contrary to, the goals and policies and
applicable elements of the comprehensive plan.

This language ensures that the provisions of the zoning ordinance are enacted to support and
further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. They are some of the tools created to
implement the action items identified in the Plan. To stray too far from the regulations contained
within the zoning ordinance is to stray from the goals and policies of the Plan. They are part of a
system created to maintain orderly growth for the community and when special use permits do
no strictly adhere to the standards and variances stray far from the requirements, the system
breaks down and the Comprehensive Plan fails to be implemented and upheld as the zoning
ordinance requires.

Summary of the Relief Requested

This proposal requests some very significant relief from the zoning ordinance. The requests for
relief are from density requirements, dimensional requirements, parking requirements and Hope
Village Overlay District requirements. Each of those requests is detailed below.

Density Relief Requested

The project proposes a density of 6 units per acre, or one unit per 7,272 square feet of land area.
That is significantly denser than anywhere else in Scituate. We look to the zoning ordinance to
see what would be allowed and find the following:

Article III Section 3.5 Minimum lot size for multifamily dwelling
structures. More than thirty-five (35) dwelling units, one million four
hundred thousand (1,400,000) square feet plus forty thousand (40,000)
square feet for each dwelling unit over 35.

Using this formula and the total number of units proposed of 193, we can determine the
following:

Density Calculation
Number of Units Required Area (sf) Relief Required (sf)
35 1,400,000 none
193 7,720,000 6,316,589

This table clearly represents that at the current density proposed of 193 units the applicant must
seek relief equal to 6,316,589 square feet of land area. That is a density variance of 145
acres. That is an astronomical request as far as density variances go.

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 3

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
Dimensional Relief Requested

The proposal is requesting several forms of dimensional relief. Each of them is detailed below
and compared with the zoning ordinance requirements. The requirements for the RS-120 zoning
district apply as the property is zoned M, but proposed as a multi-family residential project.

1. Dimensional variance for minimum lot width for multi-family detached dwelling structures,
including two (2) new multi-family structures:

Article III, Section 3.5 Minimum lot width shall be three (300) feet plus an
additional ten (10) feet for each dwelling unit in excess of three (3)

Lot Width Requirements

Number of Units Required (ft) Provided (ft)
193 2,200 1,033
Total Relief Needed (ft) 1,167

This table clearly shows that the applicant provides less lot width than they actually seek for
relief.

2. Dimensional variance from minimum parking setback from a boundary line

Article III, Section 3.10.b No parking shall be permitted within one

hundred (100) feet of any boundary line or within the required minimum
front yard.

The applicant is seeking an 18 foot variance from this requirement.

3. Dimensional height variances for new construction buildings

Article III, Section 1.2 Residential District Dimensional Regulations

The applicant is seeking building height relief for the 2 new construction buildings. The height
limitation in the district is 30 feet. The proposed structures are 68 feet tall. This is a variance of
38 feet. The requested variance itself is eight (8) feet taller than the maximum height for the
district. The proposed structures will tower over the existing mill and anything in Hope
Village and the Town of Scituate.

Parking Relief Request

The applicant is seeking relief from the Towns off street parking requirements for this project.

Article III, Section 3.10.a Two (2) car spaces per dwelling unit (three
hundred (300) sq. ft. per space)

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 4

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
 Article III, Section 3.10.b no parking permitted within one hundred (100)
feet of any boundary line.

Parking Requirements for 193 Units

# of Spaces Area Per Space (sf) Total Area (sf) Setback (ft)
Provided 227 153 34,731 82
Required 386 300 115,800 100
Relief Requested 159 147 81,069 18

The applicant is requesting relief in the order of 159 parking spaces. That means that the
applicant is only proposing to provide only 59% of the parking that is actually required by
the ordinance. In addition to that they are proposing to make the actual spaces 50%
smaller than the ordinance requires them to be.

4. The applicant is seeking relief from the Towns requirement that no onsite wastewater
treatment systems (OWTS) be permitted closer than one hundred and fifty (150) feet from
the edge of any pond or stream.

Article IV, Section 7 Setback from water bodies. Sewage disposal facilities designed to
leach wastes into the soil shall be located no closer than one hundred fifty (150) feet from
the edge of any pond or stream.

The applicant is seeking relief from this requirement and intends to place the OWTS within 100
feet of the Pawtuxet River. Many communities placed stricter controls on the placement of
OWTS than the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Managements minimum standard
of 100 feet. Scituate was one of those communities, increasing the minimum requirement by 50
feet as an added protection to natural and environmental resources. Several years ago a
stakeholder group was formed as part of a legislative effort at the State level to look at
eliminating these additional requirements by municipalities. The additional controls were studied
by the stakeholder group and the consensus was that instead of remove them outright, RIDEM
would study their own regulations and amend them accordingly to tighten their own controls and
implement increased setbacks in appropriate areas. This work is still underway and until it is
completed, the stricter setback requirements remain in full force and effect as a way for
communities with fragile natural resources to provide an added layer of protection in addition to
RIDEMs bare minimum standard. The applicant has provided no evidence on the record as
to why the Town should grant a variance to their regulation that strives to provide added
protection to a natural habitat that should be protected and promoted by those making
land use decision for the community.

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 5

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
Burden of Proof for the Granting of a Special Use Permit

Section 6.C.10 provides the Zoning Board the authority the ability to hear and decide special use
permits. The ordinance identifies that special use permits shall be measured against the
following criteria:

A. It will be compatible with the neighboring land uses.

B. It will not create a nuisance in the neighborhood.
C. It will not hinder the future development of the town.
D. It will be in conformance with the purposes and intent of the
comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance.

The following section will take each of these standards and discuss how this
project does or does not meet each of these criteria for a special use permit and
provide evidence and reasons to support the conclusion.

A. It will be compatible with the neighboring land uses:

This proposal is for 193 new units of residential housing. The majority of surrounding land uses
is currently residential housing units. One could end the analysis there and conclude that because
the new use is the same as the existing use they are compatible. That would be an incomplete
analysis and would fail to fully answer the first requirement of the special use permit. This is not
just about residential being in the same vicinity as residential. This is a more complex question
about is it compatible to place 193 new units of housing, located on a single site of 32 acres,
within an historic village neighborhood? Consideration must be given to the density of the
proposed housing, when compared with the density of the surrounding housing. In this case, the
proposed housing is far denser than the surrounding existing density. That can hardly be
considered compatible. Often housing densities are mixed within the same area, but when a
single lot has a density that far exceeds the density of the surrounding neighborhood it creates an
isolated area that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Compatibility is not as simple as the face value of the land use being residential to
residential, similar to how one commercial use is not automatically compatible to other
commercial uses simply because they are both commercial uses. One must look beyond the
surface use to conduct a thorough analysis to answer this criterion properly. For these reasons
the proposed project, being at a density that far exceeds anything in the surrounding
neighborhood, or in the entire town, is not compatible with the neighboring land uses. The
existing mill structure is much larger than any other structure in the neighboring area. But it fits
in with fabric of the community. It is a mill village and expected. To add 2 new buildings that
will dwarf the existing mill building will cause the existing fabric of the mill village to be
altered beyond repair. The bulk and massing of the proposed 5-story buildings will
interrupt the flow of the historic character of a mill and its housing that was establish well
over 100 years ago.

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 6

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
B. It will not create a nuisance in the neighborhood.

The creation of a nuisance can be a subjective action. What is a nuisance to one is not necessarily
a nuisance to another. In the case of this land development proposal the question is will the
construction of 193 new units of housing, and all of the associated activity that comes with it,
create a nuisance for Hope Village and the surrounding area. One must consider not just the
creation of the 193 new units of housing, but the approximately 350 new residents and the 300
new cars that will put on the roadways of Hope Village. Hope Village is a fairly small compact
area, with little to nothing in the way of services offered. All of the residents of this project will
require vehicles as the areas is not serviced by RIPTA buses. This is a tremendous traffic load on
an already crowded roadway system. Many residents have testified on the record of traffic
concerns and pedestrian concerns from their own personal experiences. This type of information
cannot be devalued due to the fact that it is not presented by an expert traffic engineer. This
information is firsthand knowledge from living in the village for many years. That knowledge
cannot be studied in books and presented in reports. Hope Village does not have the adequate
infrastructure to accommodate 193 new residences, 350 new residents and 300 new vehicles.
There are overcrowded streets, crumbling sidewalks and no public sewer available to this site.
With the construction of this project there will be more people than Hope Village can
handle, more cars than local streets can accommodate and the environment will have to
supply and absorb more than its fair share. That most certainly creates a nuisance in the
neighborhood.

C. It will not hinder the future development of the Town.

Towns only have a certain capacity to develop. This capacity is not only about land availability
but also must take into consideration the ability of the municipality to provide services such as
police, fire, road maintenance, education, senior services, sanitation, animal control, parks and
recreation and the like. It is well known that residential development does not pay for itself. It is
a loss. It costs more to services residential development than is collected in taxes. Placing 193
new residences in a single location not only over stresses that particular location, Hope
Village it also stresses the entire Town. The towns ability to serve residential development
is a finite resources and this project subtracts from that finite resources in an astronomical
way and places the entire burden in a single location.

D. It will be in conformance with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.

The following section discusses in great detail why this project is not in conformance with the
purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. When you consider the magnitude of the
variances requested by this application it is impossible to find that this project is in
conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Conformance with the Zoning Ordinance would be
if the project met the requirements of the ordinance or was seeking minor variations from the

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 7

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
requirements. This proposal seeks variances of such magnitude they are measured in
millions of square feet, 6,316,689 million square feet exactly. There is no way that can be
considered conformance.

Burden of Proof for the Granting of a Variance

Article I, Section 6.11 though 15 authorize and provides the standards and requirements for the
granting of variances. Specifically Section 6.13 outlines the general standards that must be met to
grant such a variance. This section will look at each of those standards and provide a discussion
and evidence as to why this proposal does not meet those standards.

(13) In granting a variance, the zoning board of review shall require that
evidence to the satisfaction of the following standards be entered into the
record of the proceedings:

(a) That the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the
unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the
general characteristics of the surrounding area; and is not due to a
physical or economic disability of the applicant

The relief being sought here is for density and for dimension. The property has an existing
structure, which in some cases does not meet the dimension requirements. Granting relief of such
would be a formality. The real relief is for the additional new structures. Those new structures
are not a result of the subject land; they are a result of the applicants desire to maximize the use
of the property. The density relief requested is not a result of the unique characteristics of the
land. There is an existing structure that would lend itself to rehabilitation and residential units.
The applicant is seeking density variances beyond what would even fit inside the mill
structure for housing by creating 2 additional 5-story buildings. That, again, is a result of a
desire to maximize the use of the property, not a result of the property itself.

(b) That the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant
and does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize
greater financial gain

The hardship does not appear to be the result of any prior action of the applicant, but it
absolutely results primarily, if not solely, from the desire of the applicant to realize greater
financial gain. As previously stated, this site has an existing historic mill building available for
rehabilitation into residential units. Additionally, it is clear the receiver intends to maximize
profits in order to pay creditors. That intent should not outweigh the required standards that
would not be equally applied to any other applicant. The overall community sentiment seems to
be supportive of reasonable and responsible mill redevelopment. The issue here is the
magnitude of the proposed development and the outrageous nature of the relief needed to

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 8

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
accomplish it. The construction of 2 new buildings for additional residential housing cannot
be recognized as anything but an attempt to maximize the use of the site for financial gain.

(c) That the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general
character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of the
zoning ordinance or the comprehensive plan upon which the ordinance is
based

It is impossible to state that the addition of 193 new residential units will not alter the general
character of the surrounding area. This project will add somewhere in the order of 300 new
vehicles to local roads and 350 new residents to Hope Village. These new residents, driving
through Hope Village and throughout Scituate, will require Town services. These services
include, but are not limited to, police, fire, education, public works (road maintenance), parks
and recreation, senior services, library services and the like. This immediate influx of 350 new
residents will stress services beyond the capacity that Scituate can manage. Absorbing that
number of residents takes time for a community of this size and with the construction of this
project as proposed the time needed will not be provided. To suggest that granting this relief
will not alter the general character of the area would be akin to using a recipe for cookies
and instead of the 3 eggs the recipe calls for, only using 1 and then claiming it wasnt
altering the recipe. The cookies are never going to look, feel or taste the way they would if
they had used 3 eggs required and they would have undeniably altered the recipe.

This project most certainly impairs the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a method for orderly growth and the
zoning ordinance creates the land use controls to implement that orderly growth. This project
violates many of the basic principles, goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, which is
discussed in a section below, and is requesting astronomical variances from the very land use
tools put in place by such a plan. Variances were designed to allow slight deviations from the
regulations under certain circumstances, as long as those deviations did not allow
development to stray too far from the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This
project is seeking variances and relief of such a magnitude that the zoning regulations
never contemplated anything like this. If they had the provisions for such would be
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance standards would be
obtainable.

(d)That the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary

Who is to say what the least relief necessary really is? This is a somewhat subjective notion. The
applicant will of course declare that the least relief is whatever the relief that they are seeking.
But in order to do so they must provide some evidence to support that claim. We have yet to see
any satisfactory evidence from the applicant to prove that these requests are the least relief
necessary. The word least means the smallest amount. In this case the applicant would like

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 9

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
everyone to believe that the construction of 2 new 5-story buildings that dont meet the
dimensional regulations are the smallest amount of relief needed. The applicant would
like everyone to believe that an almost 6.4 million square foot density bonus is the smallest
amount of relief necessary. The applicant would like everyone to believe that providing
only 50% of the required parking spaces and parking area is the smallest amount of
relief needed when constructing an adequate parking facility. The relief requested for this
project is some of the largest relief this professional planning consultant has seen in almost 15
years of professional and municipal planning and land use. These variance requests are
enormous. Enormous is NOT the smallest amount.

Section 14 provides for additional language that the zoning board shall require that evidence be
entered into the record showing the following:

(b) In granting a dimensional variance, that the hardship that will be

suffered by the owner of the subject property if the dimensional variance is
not granted shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience, which shall
mean that there is no other reasonable alternative to enjoy a legally
permitted beneficially use of ones property. The fact that a use may be
more profitable or that a structure may be more valuable after the relief is
granted shall not be grounds for relief. (emphasis added)

As with the term least relief necessary, the term mere inconvenience is somewhat subjective.
A mere inconvenience for one may not constitute a mere inconvenience for another. Certainly
not maximizing the full financial use of the property amounts to more than a mere inconvenience
for the applicant. Unfortunately for them, it is not an appropriate justification for an approval of
their project. The highlighted words in the above section are key. It is impossible to argue that
in not granting the dimensional relief for the new construction buildings there would be
no other reasonable alternative to enjoy a legally permitted beneficial use of ones
property. The site has an existing mill structure ripe for rehabilitation. Furthermore, the
multi-family use is not a legally permitted beneficial use of the property, but rather one
allowed only by special use permit. As our legal counsel has advised, the only way to allow
dimensional relief in connection with a special use permit is when the Zoning Ordinance
specifically provides the permission. The Scituate Zoning Ordinance does not. The applicant
would still need Zoning and Planning approvals but they would be so much more in
conformance with the ordinance and regulations it would be farfetched to think the Town would
be unwilling to at least work with them if they came back with a somewhat responsible and
sensitive proposal for the property.

There is no question that the use will be more profitable and the structure more valuable after the
relief is granted. That is the purpose in seeking the relief from the regulations. When regulations
are strict (and that is often for good reason), an applicant will just ask for relief so they can
maximize their use and see greater financial gain. The property already has value with an

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 10

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
existing structure. How can one claim that adding additional structures is not equivalent to
adding value or seeking more profit?

Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan

The Comprehensive Plan is intended to the primary planning document guiding conservation and
development for the Town. They are designed to serve and address the needs and desires of the
residents for various services provided by the municipality and it provides a pattern of growth
that can accommodate and anticipate how those services can be allocated throughout the
community.

Section A-2.0 Purpose of Comprehensive Plan states:

The major purpose of the Scituate Comprehensive Plan is to chart a future

for the community which is consistent with both local goals and guidelines
established by the State of Rhode Island.

In this section we will look at the applicable sections of the Towns Comprehensive Plan and
compare them with the specific details of the applicants proposal. We will analyze and provide
evidence as to why this application does not meet or further the goals and policies set forth in the
Town of Scituates Comprehensive Plan.

D. Land Use Plan

We only have to go to the first page (D-1) of the Land Use Plan Element of the
document to find strong wording regarding the protection of villages and more
specifically, Hope. The following citations from the Introduction section of this
element clearly show that this project as proposed, is not supported by the
Comprehensive Plan.

D-1.0 Introduction

As part of the preliminary planning process leading to this

Comprehensive Plan, local residents expressed strong
support for land use controls which would protect the
villages.

The only significant manufacturing facility is the historic

Hope Mill. Local residents endorsed mixed manufacturing
and commercial uses but no housing in the mill.(emphasis
added)

The current regulations, dimensional requirements, zoning densities, along with the Village
Overlay Zoning, are those very land use controls that the Comprehensive Plan contemplates for
protection of the villages. Additionally, the residents did not feel that residential conversion was
HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 11
Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
the best use for the property. To grant exorbitant relief of these exact land use controls put in
place to protect the village, to allow for very high density residential development of the
Hope Mill, is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan as shown by the citations
above.

Moving further into the Land Use Plan Element on page D-4 we find the Goals, Policies and
Implementation section. This section is used to identify the basic goals for the element, the
policies to further that goal and the implementation measures needed to achieve it. The first goal
and related policy and implementation strategy are:

D-2.0 Policy Planning Chart Land Use Plan

Goal: Protect Traditional Development Pattern

Policies: Retain distinctive character of the Villages

Implementation: Review and revise Village Overlay district

zoning as deemed necessary

This goal, policy and action tie directly back to the statements made in the introduction section
about protecting the villages and the respecting the land use controls to do so. This again
reinforces the argument that it is inappropriate and contrary to the spirit and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan to blatantly ignore the appropriate land use controls put in place to
protect the character and integrity of Hope Village. Projects and development in the villages
should comply with zoning requirements and overlay districts as they were developed as a result
of the Comprehensive Plan and its desire to protect the integrity and character. Allowing for
development that does not comply with the regulations, and granting relief of the controls
put in place to implement the goals and policies of the Plan, is clearly a violation of the
Comprehensive Plan.

Page D-5 of the Land Use Plan recognizes that the Town must allow for increases in density to
accommodate for affordable housing. This recognition goes as far back as the 1994
Comprehensive Plan which suggested incentives for the construction of such. The language is as
follows:

D-3.0 Land Use Plan

A second change, recommended in 1994 Comprehensive

Plan and supported today, provides incentives for the
construction of affordable housing to meet the needs of
local residents who are being priced out of the market. A
modest density incentive to increase the number of
affordable housing units being constructed is proposed.
(emphasis added)

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 12

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
The Plan definitively states that the appropriate approach to achieving the construction of
affordable housing, while still keeping intact the other goals and policies of the plan related to
retaining Scituates rural character and historic fabric is through modest density increases. This
project proposes far beyond what could be considered a modest density increase, with
residential units being 6 times what the underlying zoning would allow for. This is
obviously not in keeping with the language and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.

Further into the section the above concept is additionally supported by identifying areas of
medium density residential zoning, Hope Village being specifically called out, and recognizing
that a 10 percent density increase would be appropriate for affordable housing, partially based on
the expectation that at a future date sewer service would be extended from West Warwick into
the village.

D-3.1.2 Medium Density Residential

This area represents a continuation of the RRW 60/80 and RSW 60/80
zoning districts for Hope Village.

Portions of the medium density residential use area are now serviced by
public water from the Kent County Water Authority. At some future date
sewer services will be extended from West Warwick to the higher density
sections of Hope.

The 10 percent density increase for affordable housing would also apply
to the areas designated for medium density residential.(emphasis added)

This language clearly shows that the intent was to allow for the creation of affordable housing
but at a reasonable density that would not significantly alter the character of the area in which the
housing was being constructed. Any land development project that would propose
significantly more dense housing than was considered in the Comprehensive Plan would be
in direct conflict with the Plan. Understandably, at a later date than the drafting of this plan,
there was a mandate to create an Affordable Housing Plan for the community, as a result of a
statewide initiative, but even after that language was drafted densities of the magnitude being
proposed by this project are out of character and in conflict with the regulatory language.
Compliance with the Affordable Housing Plan specifically will be addressed in a greater detail in
a later section of this report.

Further along into the element specific implementation actions related to this increase in density
is called out.

D-4.2 Zoning Ordinance Revisions

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 13

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
 Under the Land Use Plan recommendation and those of other elements of
the Comprehensive Plan, it will be necessary to revise and continually
review the Zoning Ordinance as follows:

5. Adopt special incentive regulations allowing limited density increase

where affordable housing units are provided. Housing Element
proposal.(emphasis added)

This identification of a method by which to provide for affordable housing, and the clear
recognition that those units produced needed to be done so by allowing limited density increases
paints a very clear picture that the authors of this Plan, which is ultimately the community of
Scituate as a whole, understood that there needed to be a balance between the creation of
affordable housing and the impacts that increased density can have on an area, and in reality the
entire Town. This theme is absolutely reinforced by the Affordable Housing Plan that was
adopted at a later date and will be discussed in more detail.

The Land Use Plan element provides an abundance of language that speaks to Scituates desire
to preserve its rural character and the historic fabric of its villages through land use controls,
such as zoning requirements and overlay districts. There is clearly recognition of the need for
affordable housing and allowance for such if it is done in a manner that is sensitive to the
characteristic stated above. The Town identifies land use controls (zoning requirements and
overlays) as the primary method to preserve rural character and maintain historic villages and
then allows for moderate density increases for affordable housing in appropriate areas, as long as
the creation of such does not alter or destroy the preservation efforts initiated by those land use
controls. To grant dimensional variances of the magnitude proposed by this project, and to
allow a project to receive waivers from Village Overlay districts, is absolutely a violation of
the Comprehensive Plan. Doing so would strip the plan of all of the methods put in place to
achieve the overarching goals of the Land Use Plan element and this can easily be
understood by reviewing the cited sections of the Plan above.

E-Housing Element

The Housing element of the Plan was later supplemented with the Towns Affordable Housing
Plan. A majority of the this report will rely on consistency with the Affordable Housing Plan, but
several areas of the Housing element are worthy of noting, as they do provide the foundation for
the Affordable Housing Plan and the theme established in this Plan is clearly extended and
strengthened in the Affordable Housing Plan. Page E-5 begins the discussion of how to
implement policies identified on the previous pages of the section.

E-3.2 Implementation

Allow conversion of certain types of existing structures by special use

permits and require as a condition of the special use permit that a

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 14

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
 percentage of units (10 percent, for example) be offered at or below
market rate rents to locally-connected households. These should include
commercial/industrial structures and mills.

This is again a reinforcement of the policy to allow for moderate density increases to achieve
affordable housing goals. The language above specifically ties that policy to the rehabilitation of
mill buildings for this purpose.

Further into the element a discussion of the need for affordable housing reveals a foundation for
the limit on density bonuses in general, but specifically for conversion sites. The Plan provides
a well placed argument as to why mill sites may not be compatible for conversion to
residential development and in cases where they are, densities of the underlying zoning
must be adhered to as reasonably as possible to achieve both the construction of the
affordable housing, as well as the preservation of the environment and the historic fabric of
the village in which the mill is located.

E-5.2.4 Summary of Need

While there may be some buildings suitable for limited conversions to

three or more housing units, including commercial/industrial structures
and mill buildings, no sites are specifically recommended since they lack
the critical environmental compatibility required.

The paragraph of text following the one highlighted above really drives home the point of why
the Comprehensive Plan was so emphatically based on maintaining the current density pattern as
much as possible. The authors of the plan clearly recognized, that although affordable
housing plays an important and necessary role in the development of the community, the
approach must be to construct those units throughout the community in responsible and
thoughtful locations.

Since most of Scituate is located in a watershed, with few sewers and with
strong restrictions on building density, it is appropriate that affordable
housing sites be scattered throughout the Town and incorporated with
single family housing development through density bonuses allowed under
zoning and subdivision regulations.(emphasis added)

With the adoption of the Affordable Housing Plan the Town expanded upon this policy to
include some mill conversion and other not previously considered mechanisms to achieve the
goal of creating affordable housing. But even with the adoption of the Affordable Housing Plan
the Town did not lose sight of the basic principle stated above. This project, at the current
density, proposes to place an unfair housing burden on the Village of Hope and the
surrounding area that would be directly impacted.

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 15

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
Natural Resources Element

The goals and policies of the Natural Resources element immediately address the common theme
found in the Plan, which is to use land use controls and regulations to control density and
growth, the added layer in this element being protection of the natural environment.

G-2.0 Policy Planning Chart Natural Resources

Goal: Protect Natural Resources Using a Range of Techniques

Policies: Amend development regulations to provide protection for special

areas such as unique habitats and the Pawtuxet River.

Implementation: Revision of Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision

Regulations (emphasis added)

This project proposes to place a large Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) within 100
feet of the Pawtuxet River. The Town has a zoning requirement that no OWTS shall be within
150 feet of a wetland or water body. This proposed placement requires a variance from this
section of the Zoning Ordinance. The clear intent of this section of the Plan was to implement
tighter, stricter controls in those areas of unique habitat, specifically the Pawtuxet River. It is
impossible to deny that waiving the very zoning ordinance provision that was created to
satisfy this goal of the Comprehensive Plan would be a direct violation of the Plan.

Cultural Resources

The Cultural Resources element of the Plan strives to protect historic and cultural resources. The
Hope Mill most certainly qualifies as a historic and cultural resource, as does the surrounding
Village of Hope. The goals and policies section immediately identifies the protection of these
resources as a primary measure to be achieved.

H-2.1 Policy Planning Chart Cultural Resources

Goals: Protect Scituates Historic/Cultural Resources

Policies: Prioritize the areas/sites to be protected by a legal designation or regulations

Implementation: Continue promoting Historic Village character though protective

overlay district zoning

The underlying zoning and dimensional requirements, along with the Village Overlay Zoning,
are the primary tools put in place as a result of the above recognition in the Plan for the need for
protection of these delicate resources.

The proposed project would introduce 193 new housing units into Hope Village. The Village is
currently in need of various forms of rehabilitation itself, aside from the mill structure. It is

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 16

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
completely inappropriate and contrary to the land use restrictions put in place as a result
of the Comprehensive Plan, to grant relief to those land use restrictions and place a high
density of housing in a historic village that clearly needs rehabilitation itself to sustain its
current population.

Consistency with the Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan

The Town adopted the Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan (LMIH Plan) in December of
2004. The Plan was developed to address the need in Scituate for the development of affordable
housing. The LMIH Plan is incorporated into the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan.

The Town of Scituate definitely recognizes there is a need for affordable housing in the Town.
Several environmental constraints, the largest of those being the Scituate Reservoir and its
associated watershed, make reaching the 10% goal an arduous task that will take serious
consideration and coordination on the part of the Town.

This project proposes to build 76 units of affordable housing to add to the Towns low and
moderate income housing count. That number, when viewed in a vacuum, appears to make a
nice dent in the Towns overall need. Below we will look at the language in the LMIH Plan and
show why this project is not supported by the LMIH Plan.

Housing Works RI has Scituates current need of affordable housing units to meet the 10% state
mandate at 375 units (http://www.housingworksri.org/cities-towns/scituate). The applicant is
proposing to build close to 1/3 of the Towns required affordable housing units in a single
location where the LMIH Plan clearly calls for them to be integrated throughout the community.

The LMIH Plan identifies Implementation Actions as mechanisms to achieve the 10% goal for
affordable housing units. Several of those Implementation Actions are described below to
provide a sense of the type and scale of development that was proposed and supported by the
LMIH Plan to achieve the state mandate.

Implementation Action 1: Continue to identify potential redevelopment

sites for re-use specifically as affordable housing.

The Town has identified sites that offer the redevelopment potential for re-
use specifically as affordable housing. Etc.

For each site, the following assumptions were made;

1. All development would be multifamily

2. For existing manufacturing and commercial buildings, the total heated

floor area was reduced by 20 percent to account for common areas,
mechanical rooms etc. The resulting floor area was divided by 1,200 sq.
ft. for each apartment/housing unit.
HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 17
Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
 3. For town owned, and state owned buildings total heated floor area was
discounted by 20 percent to account for mechanical and common areas.
The net floor area was divided by 1000 sq. ft. The consideration of these
sites was due to current and past discussions about the abandonment of
these facilities with Town staff and State officials.

Special consideration was given to the redevelopment potential for buildings that could
accommodate multifamily housing. A reasonable calculation was applied to determine the
number of units that could be expected to be realized from each structure.

Implementation Action 2: Permit housing development in residential

districts on land located outside of the Scituate Reservoir Watershed for
development of affordable housing, resulting in optimum site design while
minimizing negative impacts on the watershed.

On average Scituates zoning ordinance allows development of dwelling

structures at a density of one dwelling per three acres. To meet the needs
of affordable housing, a density increase is proposed for land in
residential districts outside the watershed. To promote the use of land for
affordable housing on the available acreage outside the watershed, a
Residential Density Housing Zoning District (RDH) would be enacted.
The densities in the RDH District would be higher than current zoning.

Future regulator provisions will include the following:

1. Development density for all units that are built as part of the RDH
would be one unit per every one and a half (1.5) developable acres. In the
case of duplexes with one of the units being designated a low/mod the
density could increase to 1 unit per every one acre of developable acres.

This action would attempt to allow modest density increases in land outside of the watershed to
accommodate affordable housing development by right by creating a new zoning district.

Implementation Action 3: Create a Residential-Multifamily Zoning

District (RMF)

Multifamily housing is currently only permitted by special use permit in

Business Districts (B). A new Residential-Multifamily Zoning District
(RFM) will be created to permit the development of multifamily housing
by right, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a
major land development project. The zoning ordinance will be amended to
provide for standards of density, building placement and design,
landscaping and buffering, traffic circulation and parking, utilities,

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 18

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
 drainage and site design for the proposed RFM district. The RFM District
would encompass parcels identified in Appendix.

The action item considered specifically creating a district for the purpose of allowing
multifamily housing by right. Specific parcels were identified as appropriate for inclusion in that
district. We will look at those parcels chosen when we take a closer look at Appendix A below.

The three Implementation Actions detailed above are those in the LMIH Plan that deal directly in
housing density. The common theme among them is the magnitude of density increases they
consider allowing. In Action 1, the actual floor area of the building is calculated using reasonable
deductions for infrastructure and appropriately sized apartments to determine an overall unit
calculation. In Action 2, the RDH district for development outside of the watershed a density
bonus of 1 unit per 1 acre of development is contemplated. In Action 3, the RMF district is
identified and Appendix A clearly shows that the sites are all at a reasonable density. Appendix
A is attached to this report for clarification.

Appendix A Chart

Appendix A specifically identifies the Hope Mill property under Site-specific conversion of
manufacturing and commercial properties, as the RMF Strategy. The language included in that
section of the chart is as follows:

Expected LMI units presented = 80% of the total potential units on

specified sites assumption being the size of the site will require non-
profit involvement with a 20% for-profit support ratio

The number of affordable units identified for the Hope Mill in the Appendix A chart is 59. The
applicant makes it a point in their application several times to point out that they are offering to
supply the Town with 76 units of affordable housing, which is more than is identified in the
Towns LMIH Plan. What they completely fail to mention is that the Towns LMIH plan
clearly identifies is that the ENTIRE development potential of the Hope Mill site is
approximate 75 units. Appendix A plainly shows us that the 59 affordable units are 80% of
the total development potential with an assumption that there will be non-profit
involvement with a 20% for-profit support ratio. This developer is proposing to build
more than 2.5 times the residential units than were ever considered on this site by the
LMIH Plan.

The applicant seems to suggests, without directly saying it, that because they are proposing so
many units of affordable housing, that this project should be considered in a vacuum. With no
regard for the impacts the project will create on the neighborhood and the environment. They
claim that the project is compliant in so many ways that they did not feel it necessary to apply for
a Comprehensive Permit, and that they could apply for a standard land development application
because they complied in so many ways. Providing more than the number of affordable units

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 19

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
identified in the LMIH Plan is a commendable action of and on to itself. And if we were
reviewing this application in a vacuum, as they seem to suggest we should, we might think this
project was a great idea. If we just scratch the surface a little bit beyond that notion, we are
faced with the reality that they are also providing the Town with 117 market rate units as
opposed to the 16 market rate units contemplated by the LMIH Plan. Couple this with the
fact that the project completely overburdens Hope Village with an unfair concentration of
affordable housing and it is painfully obvious that this project DOES NOT comply with the
Town LMIH Plan. The applicant cannot claim consistency with the LMIH Plan just on the
sole basis of providing more units than the plan calls for and expect that we ignore all the
other factors that play into how those units were considered.

In Conclusion

In the course of this report we have taken an in depth look at the relief requested by the
applicant, the burden of proof that must be met for a special use permit and a zoning variance
and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that those zoning controls are based upon.
We have looked at the Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan and the affordable housing units
established specifically for the Hope Mill site and the methodology used for identifying those
units. In every single case it was blatantly obvious that this proposal by the applicant was not in
keeping with the standards and requirements set out in those land development documents.

This application far exceeds the density for anything that was ever contemplated on this site by
the zoning ordinance, Comprehensive Plan or LMIH Plan. The relief requested is enormous in its
magnitude and the resulting structures and overall development will dwarf anything the Town of
Scituate has ever seen. The project will stress town services beyond manageable capacity. This
project proposes to provide the Town with 193 new units of housing in a single application in
single 32 acre site. According to Census data the decade from 2000 to 2010, Scituates housing
stock increased from 3,904 to 4,144, that is an increase of 240 units in ten (10) years. In that time
it is likely there was a loss of some older homes so we will subtract 10%, or 24 units, for an
overall increase of approximately 216 units over ten (10) years. This project will provide the
Town with just 23 units less of residential housing in a single project, in a single location
than the Town absorbed, through the entire Town over a ten (10) year period! That is an
absolutely outrageous development burden for the Town of Scituate, never mind the small
historic Village of Hope to accommodate.

This is not a case of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). The residents of Hope appreciate that the
mill is in their backyard. It is part of the charm of Hope Village. They want to see the mill
building rehabilitated into something that benefits the entire Town and the village, not just the
developer. The proposal is irresponsible to the neighborhood, the Town and the environment. It
ignores the standards, goals and policies set forth in the Towns land development regulations
and ordinances. This project will overwhelm local streets, Town services and with sewers in such

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 20

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17
close proximity it would be environmentally irresponsible to not connect a multi-family mill
redevelopment.

Concerned Citizens for Hope Mill respectfully requests that the Zoning Board require that the
applicant comply with the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, zoning
ordinance and Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan. The applicant should be required to
submit a plan that complies more closely with the zoning ordinance and if relief is requested and
granted, that relief should be reasonable relief that can be supported by the Comprehensive Plan,
not relief that complete eviscerates all of the Towns land use policies, documents and
regulations. The Zoning Board has an obligation to uphold the Towns land use policies and
regulations and work in the best interest of the community as a whole, not provide
astronomical variances and special use permits in defiance of the regulations and the will of
the people they have sworn to serve.

HMCC Report to the Zoning Board Hope Mill Application Page 21

Submitted by Ashley V. Sweet - 9/22/17