Earlier this month, Warren Planning Board chairman Frederick Massie was playing referee to a room of distressed citizens during a public hearing on a 17-unit apartment that Waterdog owner and developer Daniel Teodoro has proposed for the site at 119 Water St.

On Monday evening during a follow-up hearing of the planning board with the developer’s team, it was Massie’s turn to vent a little frustration at the situation (not at the developer personally, he clarified later) — in regards to Warren’s less than desirable position.

Bret Jedele, attorney for Teodoro, had just reiterated — following a question by Massie regarding his concern that the building did not seem to fit in with the historic character of Water Street — that the town did not have a legal basis to deny the development based on that kind of concern, because they are under the threshold of 10 percent affordable housing as required by a state mandate.

“According to the statute, the local needs as it applies to the comprehensive plan and zoning, which includes some of the historic concerns that have been leveled, are outweighed unless the town is meeting its quota,” Jedele said. “The driving factor for the decision is whether the 10 percent quota is being met.”

“That feels like bullying,” Massie said a short time later. “The 10 percent is a ridiculous figure that was plucked out of the air…What we have here is in some ways a battleground of a ridiculous statute that doesn’t take into consideration the community. It’s a feel-good, ‘We’re going to have affordable housing.’ Quite frankly the affordable housing here is certainly not Section 8…as someone else pointed out, it doesn’t meet low-income needs. This is a middle income setup. So ‘affordable’ is a little hard to swallow here.”

Massie also took issue with Jedele’s opinion that the proposed building was consistent with the size, aesthetics, and scope of the Tourister development nearby.

“Tourister 2 somehow slipped through, because there were people on the planning board who said we wanted it to look more like Tourister 1, and because of a previous planning director who didn’t define that decision, that thing ended up looking the way it looks now,” he said. “You hardly want a bad decision amplified on Water Street.”

A call for compromise
Massie went on to say that his frustration with the situation came from a place where it seemed as though the developer was not trying to come to a more agreeable proposal with the neighborhood, which had clearly voiced its disapproval of the project as presented.

“I’m not grandstanding here…I’m alarmed,” he said. “There feels like there’s no room for compromise, and to me that’s the basis by which good government is run. Not, ‘We have the right to do this and we’re going to build the biggest possible building we can.’”

Jedele responded by saying that the hearing was an opportunity to respond to questions and concerns from the planning board to possibly work towards some of those potential compromises.

Massie mentioned the possibility of the developer looking into a proposal that included three stories instead of four, to which Jedele said could be considered given proper time. However, he also pointed out that in such a situation, the amount of units that would be listed as “affordable” would likely be reduced. The current proposal would list 15 of the 17 units at 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), despite only being required to list 25 percent of the units at that rate by state law.

“The developer wants to go with as many affordable units as he can develop which makes it feasible,” Jedele said.

Not all planning board members were in alignment with Massie’s interpretation.

“I don’t feel bullied,” said Brett Beaubien. “I don’t feel like there’s been no ability to compromise. I think this is the first time we’ve been here with the ability to ask questions if there is an ability to compromise…I think this is one of those things where they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The building has windows on the fourth floor that are nearly identical to 155 Water St. The colors are in keeping with the historical colors. It’s not massive, there’s certainly a much bigger building behind it. It seems like we’re fighting about what’s a pretty building…Those are not my concerns.”

Beaubien asked why the project included such a high percentage of impervious lot coverage, and was concerned about drainage and stormwater runoff from the site. Casali, responding to that concern, said that in his expert analysis, drainage would actually be improved on the site if the development was built, because the water would be captured and put through a modern filtration system.

Beaubien asked if the developer would consider creating an entry and exit lane for delivery vehicles from Water Street in between the proposed development and the Waterdog (where an outdoor patio space exists and would, in the proposal, be connected with a public walkway between the properties). This would ideally help address concerns of Sisson Street residents, who are concerned about the flow of traffic on that street, where the only entrance to the proposed parking lot for the development and the Waterdog would be located.

Project engineer Joe Casali said this proposal would not be a good practice to co-mingle commercial traffic with pedestrian traffic, but relented that they could look into the matter further.

“We can sign and stripe anything, but ultimately it’s an enforcement issue,” Casali said in response to a question about alleviating traffic on Sisson Street. Jedele added that Teodoro would be instructing Waterdog employees not to park on Water Street, but to instead utilize public parking lots in town.

Outlook for existing historic building is dire
During the public hearing earlier this month, multiple pleas were heard regarding trying to save the existing structure at 119 Water St., which was built in 1850.

But a new report from the town’s own engineering firm, Fuss & O’Neill, indicates that preserving the structure would be a monumentally tall task, and that the cost to do so would likely be even higher than the some $931,000 estimate indicated by the developer’s own report on the building.

“Overall, the building envelope and structure were observed to be in poor condition. The building exhibits evidence of long-term neglect and deferred maintenance,” the Fuss & O’Neill report reads. “…the Engineer observed severe deterioration of the first-floor framing, likely due to insects and moisture. Some floor joists are severed due to deterioration that has extended through the full member cross section. Due to the observed deterioration of the first-floor framing, the load carrying capacity of the first-floor framing is compromised and is a safety risk to any occupants. F&O recommends restricting access to the first floor.”

Planning board member Ashley Medeiros provided a more visceral description of the building during a visit she took personally to see the condition of the building.

“The fact that people live there is heartbreaking to me, that people in this town have to live in a building like that. It is just awful. I was afraid it was going to fall over on me. You can see the termite damage from inside. It is awful,” she said. “If you don’t believe me, you can go see it for yourself.”
Town Planner Bob Rulli reiterated that the building was in bad enough condition that it could be condemned by the town, and that only two of the six residential units in the building are occupied currently.

On the affordable housing mandate
Massie began the meeting by asking Rulli to address talk that had begun to spread throughout Warren regarding the town not actually being required to adhere to the state’s affordable housing mandate.

For context, the developer is proposing this 17-unit building under a comprehensive permit, which has different standards for acceptance by the local governing authorities — and can only be utilized in communities that have not met the 10 percent affordable housing threshold. Warren currently has around 4.23 percent “affordable” housing recognized by the state.

“To the comment that someone made in the newspaper that there is no enforcement, that is categorically incorrect,” Rulli said. “When a community does not meet the 10 percent affordable requirement, that is when a comprehensive permit application has to be considered. If a community meets the 10 percent threshold, they do not have to accept comprehensive permit applications…We’re obligated, whether we like it or not, to accept that application. It is not local law, it is state law.”

Rulli would later again expand upon the situation regarding the affordable housing mandate and the difficult position it puts the town in when considering applications such as the one before it now.

“I appreciate the community’s concern about what’s happening but I also want the community to understand the constraints you are under based on the statute,” he said. “But I also don’t think, in fairness to everyone, all the information that is necessary to make an intelligent decision is out there yet. And I’m not blaming the applicant, his team, or you. Rhode Island Housing and the legislature have put us in a bad position in terms of how we address these issues…If people don’t like it, talk to your elected officials in Providence on how to change that.”

Ultimately, the planning board voted to continue the issue to Monday, Dec. 5, which will be another public hearing.