The Warren Planning Board took no action during their meeting last Thursday night regarding the three-story, 12-unit apartment building proposed at 119 Water St., opting instead to continue the matter to their next regularly-scheduled meeting on Jan. 23, 2023.

The reason was that the developer’s team had not been informed ahead of time of deeper questions that the board was prepared to ask regarding financial information submitted that delved into the ultimate cost and profitability of the proposed development — submitted in what is known as a pro forma document.

Additionally, more questions regarding their requested parking variance will need to be addressed in light of the development’s updated dimensions, from what was originally a four-story building with 19 units, to what is now a three-story building with 12 units.

Planning Board Chairman Fred Massie also spoke about the proposed change in the number of units that would be designated as affordable to be included. In their original proposal, 80% of the 19 units were going to be listed at 80% percent of the area median income. Then the size of the development changed, and 10 of the 12 units were to be listed as affordable. Then that changed again, and the proposal now before the board includes only three of the 12 units listed as affordable.

“Personally, I feel that the number of affordable units going from 80 to 25 percent does not meet the spirit of the comprehensive permit,” Massie told the developer’s team.

The reason for questioning the pro forma stemmed from the estimations made within the document that a market-rate apartment in the new development would go for around $1,500 a month, while a so-called “affordable” apartment in the same building would go for $1,400.

“The market rents in the pro forma are drastically lower than what the market rate is,” said Town Planner Bob Rulli.

Both sides agreed that a continuance was in the best interest for all.

“Basically I look at this and there’s not enough explanation, and the applicant has the burden of proof,” explained assistant town solicitor Benjamin Ferreira.

A commitment on aesthetic compromises
The meeting included written and verbal comments from members of the public, some of whom expressed continued disappointment that the development would require the demolition of two dilapidated historic structures.

Others mentioned how the look and feel of the building still did not mesh with the established aesthetic of the Water Street historic district, something Massie mentioned as well.

“The look of the building, although it has shrunk in size, still is not meeting the spirit and the streetscape of Water Street. And it seems my feeling is more can be done with the outside of the building. This would include window frames, detailing on the building, the first floor commercial frontage looking more like the buildings that are here,” he said. “We are dealing with a historic district. A new building can be built in a historic district as long as it respects the look and feel of that historic district. Quite frankly it’s surprising to me that the applicant, who is in a historic building in the historic district, seems somewhat tone deaf to some of the comments that have been made by the public, but also the importance of the vibrance of that historic district to his own business.”

Bret Jedele, representing the developer, Daniel Teodoro, said that the team has already stated its commitment to honoring the aesthetic wishes of the town — and that such details are supposed to be hammered out following the initial approval process, which is where the process currently stands.

“I feel like we’ve sort of lost sight of the fact that this is a multi-stage approval,” he said. “Window trim and those types of details are usually vetted in between master plan and the final approval…The applicant has made a commitment to work through those details after hearing the concerns of the board and the public.”

Reached Friday following the meeting, Massie said he was pleased with the amount of community interest in the project, as it has resulted in a collaborative process between the town and developer to try and find something that could be acceptable and beneficial to the town.

“Frankly, when we were first presented with that [original design], it looked like a good idea until we started delving into it with some excellent public comment,” he said. “I think they’re [the developer’s team] operating in good faith. Do I wish the process had gone differently? Yeah, for sure, but they’re listening. The owner is there listening to the process as it’s going on. This is in the spirit of working with each other.”

But Massie said he will be looking carefully at how the developer explains their financial reasoning for cleaving off most of the affordable housing from what was once a housing project promising 80% of its units would be affordable.

“The spirit of the comprehensive permit is not to make the 10 percent an ever-receding factor, and if they’re not willing to help us meet that goal because they’re putting in fewer affordable units, that’s a problem,” he said. “They have to have a very solid financial reason for doing what they’re doing, and I haven’t seen it yet.”