To the editor:

I write to address some points regarding the proposed development of the Water Street project reported in the Times-Gazette on Oct. 5, the most pressing of which is that contrary to perception (and language used in the article). The town is under no state mandate to provide affordable housing. The town is under no obligation to approve any development project simply because it includes units deemed “affordable housing.”

“There is no mandate.” That is what Raymond Neirinckx, the RI State Housing Commission Coordinator told me in a phone call. “There are no carrots or sticks.” Towns gain nothing from the state for building up their affordable housing inventory nor suffer anything by the state for neglecting to build up their affordable housing. All claims to the contrary are, in Neirinckx’s term, “hyperbole.” He said that while the state, in consultation with townships, has set a goal for municipalities to reach a percentage of affordable housing, that goal is not binding.

He said that if in our case, the town refused the Water Street project, and its developer appealed that decision to the state, the state could consider in its ruling the extent to which Warren has previously sought to increase affordable housing: if none-to-little, the developer's case is strengthened. But if the town has made a good faith effort prior to the appeal, the developer's case loses force. The bottom line is that while Warren should aspire to increase its stock of affordable housing, no state law requires us to do so, and certainly no state law requires us to greenlight a project that contradicts our own town ordinances.

With the notion of a “mandate” no longer (nor ever having been) a factor in considering whether or not to approve the Water Street project, the town has only to deliberate over the development’s compliance with zoning regulations, which according to the article, the developer’s plans well exceed. According to the article the developers have requested nine zoning variances, most having to do with parking, though to my thinking the most significant concerns the building’s proposed height, 51.67 feet, punching through the town’s zoning cap of 35 feet by another sixteen-plus. That’s a big, tall variance, especially within the context of Water Street, as even the architect’s “aerial view” shows its building rising conspicuously above the roof peak of its proposed neighbor, the Waterdog Kitchen & Bar.

What is most at issue here is the nature of the zoning ordinances, what they are intended to protect, and what, if they fail to protect, could ensue.
I am not a lawyer but I suspect that if the town defers to the Water Street project the variances it seeks and greenlights the development, the town will be hamstrung to legally refuse future proposals with similar variances, and perhaps projects seeking greater variances. Sixty feet? Seventy feet? Or variances not part of this particular project, as we will already have set the precedent of over-ruling our own rules.

I oppose the Water Street project out of concern that greenlighting it will weaken the town’s legal determination over future zoning decisions, leading, perhaps, to an unstoppable architectural free-for-all. We have zoning ordinances for well-considered reasons. Let’s stick to them, and not skip over them.

Jerry Blitefield
Beach Street