‘This entire building is threading the needle through very small eyes,’ Deputy Planning and Development Director Bob Azar said.

Tensions ran high at the nearly five-hour City Planning Commission (CPC) meeting the evening of Jan. 21 — the preliminary plan for 269 Wickenden Street, a controversial five-story proposal at the corner of Brook and Wickenden, was on the docket.

But the preliminary plan has yet to be approved. The CPC continued the application to Feb. 18, as the developers had not fulfilled all conditions for approval that were previously agreed upon. The remaining issues with the plan that will need to be resolved for the project to move forward include reconfiguring the loading zone, revising the bicycle parking, and adding the plans for significant vegetation and landscaping around the building.

269 Wickenden has been mired in controversy since its initial master plan approval in August 2023. Many neighbors decried the design and the scale, while others have voiced excitement about increasing density on the commercial corridor.

Since 2023, developers Dustin Dezube and Kevin Diamond (who is also the architect of the project) said they have gone through seven different iterations of the proposal, with the eighth version being brought for consideration by the CPC for preliminary plan approval.

Scale, design, and parking continued to be hotly debated topics at the meeting, with the majority of those publicly testifying opposing the development.

PPS previously took issue with the design of the building but does not oppose the construction of housing units on Wickenden Street. PPS also continues to be in favor of lower, and in some cases, no parking minimums as this is a central tenet of more sustainable and equitable city planning.

At the meeting on Jan. 21, Dezube said that the development team would not file an appeal if the CPC rejected their preliminary plan proposal. He could not immediately be reached for further comment on that statement.

They will have to wait until Feb. 18 to see if they ultimately receive approval and can trudge ahead — it has been a long road to this point.

In September 2024, a lawsuit was filed against the City’s Zoning Board, contesting the approval of the project’s Master Plan. When ruling on the suit, “Judge Lamphear had heard arguments opposing and defending zoning changes for the project” and declined to delay the project, according to the Fox Point Neighborhood Association (FPNA). 

The design of the building has changed considerably since the initial 2023 proposal. But still, some neighbors who publicly testified took issue with switching the frontage to Brook from Wickenden Street, describing it as a sneaky maneuver to get around setback requirements. They also testified extensively about increased traffic congestion concerns with the addition of 74 apartments and no parking spots. Preservation of the elm trees on Wickenden was also a concern.

Some also took issue with the units being market-rate rather than designated affordable or workforce housing. Others in support of the project said that the addition of any kind of housing helps take the pressure off the current tight market.

FPNA President Lily Bogosian, a long-time opponent of the development, urged the Commission to “respect existing land use laws” and listen to the voices of residents. She invoked recent remarks by former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg regarding the importance and responsibility of local officials. 

Ian Saxine, a Fox Point resident and member of the Providence Urbanist Network voiced support for the project, saying that Fox Point Manor just down the street is of a comparable size. “The Biden Administration viewed NIMBYism as a toxic chokehold on American affordability and development,” he said, responding to Bogosian’s comments about Buttigieg.

Deputy Planning Director Bob Azar noted that the variances and parking relief have been granted, and tactical decisions regarding the frontage and green spaces were all technically within the letter of the law. “This entire building is threading the needle through very small eyes,” Azar said, explaining how the proposal reaches for the upper limits of what is admissible.

After public testimony ended, the Commissioners dove into some specific technical details that prevented them from granting plan approval at present — the lack of a landscaping plan (which was a condition of approval from the master plan stage), and issues with bike parking and loading zones.

CPC Vice Chair Charlotte Lipschitz raised issues with the loading zone for the project, noting that it did not connect to the residential area of the development, only the commercial space. 

“The last thing I want to do is continue this matter… I don’t know if there’s a way to vote on this other than to deny you this evening,” CPC Chair Michael Gazdacko said. “You’ve not given us the information to approve your plan as submitted.”

At the next meeting on Feb. 18, the Commission will open up public comment again, with the caveat that testimony has to be specific to the changes that they are putting forward — the bike parking, the landscaping, and the loading zone.

By Katy Pickens / Planning & Preservation Writer / kpickens@ppsri.org