The City Council on Monday by a 6-1 vote rejected a zoning change in Alpine Estates to allow for a small subdivision, with neighbors cheering the decision but others warning the decision conflicts with the community’s comprehensive plan and opens the city up to litigation.

“It’s called a comprehensive plan. It’s not a comprehensive mandate,” said Citywide Councilwoman Sarah Kales Lee, who joined Council President John E. Lanni Jr., Citywide Councilman Michael J. Farina, Ward 3 Councilman Paul H. Archetto, Ward 4 Councilman Mario Aceto and Ward 5 Councilman Richard D. Santamaria in rejecting the measure. Ward 6 Councilman Michael W. Favicchio was the lone vote in favor of the zoning change.

The proposal considered by the council sought to shift a parcel on Pepper Mill Lane from A-80 to A-20 zoning, which would reduce the maximum lot size from two acres to a half acre. The total size of the property in question is nearly six acres, and the new zoning would allow for as many as seven single-family homes on the land. A temporary cul-de-sac would also be extended through the proposed development.

The petition was filed by sisters Phyllis M. Brown, Lorraine A. Carlino and Patricia A. Iannelli. They are represented by attorney Robert D. Murray of Taft & McSally LLP.

The Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposal, while the ordinance committee had recommended against it on a 4-2 vote.

Dozens of nearby residents turned out for both the ordinance meeting and Monday’s gathering of the full council, with many taking to the podium during public comment to voice their opposition.

Repeatedly cited were what residents say would be the negative consequences of new development – additional strain on municipal services, a detrimental effect on home values, unsafe conditions for children during construction, wear-and-tear on roads for heavy vehicles, environmental concerns, reduction of the buffer between residential and industrial areas and issues with water drainage and runoff.

Tricia Gilmore said she fears other property owners in Alpine Estates – which currently contains roughly 400 homes – could pursue similar plans, allowing for the construction of scores of additional residences.

“We don’t want it, and we don’t need it,” she said.

Sean Gately, describing himself as a de facto spokesperson for concerned residents in the area, said the group has retained legal counsel.

He echoed the concerns over the potential precedent the zoning change could set – “We honestly believe there’s going to be a large, cascading effect,” he said – and added that the effort to stave off further large-scale residential development is “not for Alpine Estates, but for all of Western Cranston.”

State Sen. Frank Lombardi also addressed the council, urging them to consider the “welfare of the neighborhood” alongside their commitment to the comprehensive plan.

“It’s your obligation, it’s your commitment, to consider that as well,” he said.

Murray said the parcel has been in the sisters’ family for decades, and was deeded to the women roughly a decade ago. He said plans for development of the property also go back many years, and added that while the zoning change would allow for a maximum of seven houses – compared with the current limit of three – he expects the planning process would reduce that figure. The reclassification, he said, would bring the parcel in line with others in the neighborhood.

Murray also acknowledged residents’ concerns, but said they are “premature” in the context of the zoning discussion and would be addressed during the approval process for any development of the land.

Central to Murray’s argument was the comprehensive plan, a document that outlines zoning for the entire community. He said his clients’ parcel is one of hundreds in the city currently classified under a different zone than is prescribed in the plan, and that the law requires communities allow property owners to pursue formal reclassification within a reasonable timeframe.

“You have an obligation under the law,” he told the council members on Monday.

“The plan calls for it. It’s been approved at every level,” he said earlier this month during the ordinance committee gathering.

Favicchio also focused on the comprehensive plan. He pointed to the fact that the document has been approved multiple times, on both the local and state level.

“We’re already enacted the comprehensive plan,” he said. “We’re already made the decision”

Given that context, Favicchio – an attorney – said as an officer of the court he felt compelled to support the zoning change. He also cautioned that the city would almost certainly face a costly, and likely successful, legal challenge.

“If we deny this … we are likely to incur some large legal bills,” he said.

Favicchio did note that the difference between the current number of homes allowed by the zoning and the maximum of seven under the proposed reclassification is relatively minor, and said he feels “there is probably a solution to this problem.” He also spoke favorably of the indication from residents that the involvement of a land trust to purchase and preserve some of the land is being considered.

Ward 1 Councilman Steven A. Stycos – who along with Ward 2 Councilman Donald Botts Jr. was not on hand for Monday’s meeting – had voiced concerns similar to Favicchio’s during the ordinance committee’s discussion.

The residents’ concerns, he said at that time, are “important issues, but that’s not legally what we’re here to decide.” He was critical of the process through which the comprehensive plan is updated – “Nobody really pays attention to it” – and said he would be supportive of a continuation to review the situation further, but indicated he would have felt obliged, based on his oath of office, to support the rezoning.

Other council members, however, said the council must prioritize the needs of constituents and exercise its authority as the final arbiter in such matters.

“The city council has final authority over all zoning matters,” Farina said, adding that he evaluated the proposal based on its overall impact to the community.

“We have a duty to protect the citizens’ health, welfare and pursuit of happiness,” Archetto said.

“You’re elected to represent the people,” Aceto said.

Lanni was also firm in his opposition. “This city council is not a rubber stamp for any department of this city,” he said.

Patrick Quinlan, the council’s attorney, said the council was within its authority to reject the proposal, although the differences between the current zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan will need to be addressed.