Do the members of the Bristol Planning Board and Bristol Historic District Commission remember their oaths? 

“I solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution and obey the laws of the United States of America and the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; that I will in all respects observe the provisions of the Charter and ordinances of the Town of Bristol and will faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” 

Long-standing board members demonstrated their confusion about responsibilities to observe town ordinances when they failed to deny the Belvedere at Thames proposal that is so far off that people with common sense would call it a “pipe dream.”

Confused members asked the Town Solicitor how they could “pass this thing” – revealing they had made up their minds to ignore even the most common sense approach to applying ordinances. They made many procedural errors, falling all over themselves to pass it. The boards didn’t understand what they were voting for and could not apply the law.

The HDC did not once mention their own guidelines/ordinances. And although the Planning Board was making recommendation to the Zoning Board to approve, they were told they need not think about the legality of the 15 variances before recommending them. 

Instead, at the prodding of the town solicitor, their desire to approve became a request for the Town Solicitor and the “staff” to write up a motion and provide a legal basis to pass it. Obviously, the board members had no idea what the legal basis was. 

The anxiety among local law-abiding citizens over the last few months, a fear that the board and commission would not do their jobs, was fueled by a smear campaign by the developer against those he targeted as “leaders” of the opposition. The opponents number well over 500 and have asked that the development be built within ordinances. 

The anxiety turned to suspicion, vexation, incredulity and disappointment when the boards failed to do their jobs and made the incomprehensible decision. A reversal of opinion by several board members from nay to yea since the April and May meetings came without public deliberation justifying why. In one case, a Planning Board member said he changed because he could not live with the original height proposed. He later said he would agree to the original height, saying in exasperation, “I just want to get this thing passed!” 

Can the members of both boards honestly say that they are honoring their oaths? Each board has its unique oversight for review, and the decision must stand on its own merit. The board members must faithfully discharge the duties of their respective offices. They have one more chance to act accordingly and apply the laws they swore to uphold. 

Marianne Bergenholtz

366 Hope St., Bristol