There was a sense of deja vu emanating from the Town Council chambers at Warren Town Hall on Monday night, Oct. 23, as the Warren Planning Board once again hosted a lengthy public hearing on a proposed housing development that was put forth under the state’s Comprehensive Permit process, which promises 25% of its units to be legally defined as affordable and now faces public skepticism from downtown residents about the size, scope, and potential negative impacts the development could have on the historic district.

If all of that sounds familiar, it’s because many of the elements at play here ring similarly to the development that was shot down by the Planning Board earlier this year at 119 Water St., where a 12-unit development was denied under the reasoning that the required demolition of two buildings would constitute an irreversible harm on the historic streetscape.

However in this case, the development proposal put forth by John Lannan (of Bristol) and Ron Louro (of Warren) actually seeks to save an abandoned historic structure from further degradation — the former Liberty Street School, built in 1847 — remodeling it to house seven, two-bedroom units. A second building would be constructed to the rear of the property, housing 18 units in a mix of 12, two-bedroom and six, one-bedroom units for a total of 25 condominium units comprised of 43 bedrooms.

The development proposes 28 parking spaces, many of which would require parallel parking to utilize.

The development has been subject to multiple meetings of the town’s Technical Review Committee since February, and has been analyzed by police and fire personnel, the Department of Public Works, and town planning officials. A resulting document compiled a massive list of conditions that the Town deemed necessary in order for it to be able to move the project forward, which focused on concerns regarding emergency vehicle access, the ability for snow removal, and the overflow of parking and traffic into the surrounding neighborhood.

But as of Monday night, more than a couple of those concerns seemed to be unresolved.

Size of the development results in multiple issues
At 112 feet long, 44 feet wide, and nearly 40 feet tall (three stories, with a basement), the proposed 18-unit building that would need to be constructed to house the majority of units on the lot was at the center of multiple concerns from abutters of the project, many of which spoke out during the public comment portion of the meeting.

“The same fundamental concerns persist about this proposed development since the first Technical Review Committee meeting eight months ago. The new building is too big for the site, creating too much demand for parking and asphalt, and should not be larger than the school,” said Davison Bolster, reading from a letter submitted to the planning board. “In eight months of talks the proposed new building has only been reduced by 10%, and it needs to be reduced a further 20% to be compatible with the school and the site.”

Due to the size of the proposed building and the limited availability of remaining lot area to create adequate parking spaces, plans from the development team and its engineer, Principe Engineering, Inc., require the use of parallel parking along the western side of the property near one of the points of access for the development.

“The parallel parking, which we’ve noted a number of times as the primary parking for some of the units, poses an issue potentially for emergency vehicle access or snow removal because it would require a level of skill in parking every time someone wants to park in those spots,” said Planning Board Chairman Frederick Massie. “It’s really a matter of scale for me. The size of the proposed development compared to the available land on the development, that’s my concern.”

The TRC recommended the developer to try and work out an agreement with the East Bay Center, Inc. (347 Main St.) to see if they could utilize any of their land to create additional parking. Attorney Bruce Cox, representing the developer, said that they had been trying to reach such an agreement since April but have not been able to secure a deal.

For direct abutter Jason Rainone, who resides at the property directly behind the school on Miller Street, the size of the development has him worried on multiple fronts.

“I am concerned, very concerned, about the vegetation along my fence line. The latest set of plans show that they’re talking about a seven foot below grade basement to this property. And for anyone who has ever built anything, a seven-foot basement doesn’t fit in a seven-foot hole. You’re talking about a 10-foot, 12-foot-deep hole, and you’re talking about a hole that is going to come within three to five feet of that property line,” he said. “This level of commercial earth work will kill every living thing on my property line, including a row of lilacs that is well over 100 years old.”

Rainone additionally said that units on the upper floors would have a direct line of sight into his backyard where his daughter plays, and that a dumpster would be located directly on his property line as well. With all of that in mind, he said he could still envision a scenario where he supports the project.

“I think the idea of this is fantastic. Somebody has to do something with Liberty Street. The building is too beautiful, it needs to be rehabbed and it needs to be used,” he said. “[But] on no uncertain terms, we are building a 39-foot tall by 112-foot long wall 10 feet off my property line. There are other design options available for a property like this that could potentially take into account a lot of the concerns that have been made tonight and I think that they are worth investigating to come to a mutually agreeable and mutually beneficial use of this property that can serve everyone involved. But I am not necessarily sure that what we are seeing on paper right now is it.”

Removal of linden trees is unpopular
Stemming from the same issue regarding a lack of space for emergency personnel to enter the site, the developer’s engineer, Tom Principe, confirmed on Monday night that the current plan necessitated the removal of two linden trees from the front of the property, which resulted in multiple comments.

“These trees on Liberty Street are really a part of the neighborhood, are part of the atmosphere, are part of the feeling. And if they come down, it’s going to change the emotional wellbeing of the neighborhood,” said Chuck Staton, chairman of the Warren Tree Commission. “We feel everything that can be done should be done to save the trees.”

“I’ve seen this fight for keeping public trees for years and years, and I am hoping you will consider the tree as more than just a plant,” said Kathleen Pannoni, member of the Warren Tree Commission. “All I can think of is the song, ‘They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.’”

Lack of financial information forces delay
But the most pertinent and immediate issue that forced the hand of the planning board to delay any possible action on the fate of the development was due to the board not receiving a financial pro forma, as required by law, which highlights how the units would be priced and the projected cost of the development as a whole, and the profits it would theoretically generate.

The board did ask what the market rate and affordable rates of the condos would be at this time. Lannan answered that market-rate, one-bedroom units would be priced at $249,000 and two-bedroom units would go for either $349,000 or $449,000 depending on the square footage.

Melina Lodge, Executive Director of the Community Housing Land Trust of Rhode Island, testifying on behalf of the applicant, said that the affordable units would be priced at $175,000 for a one-bedroom and $253,000 for a two-bedroom.

She also emphasized the importance of building more affordable housing in Warren.

She reported that the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Warren was $2,300 a month, well above the state average of $1,996. The median home price in Warren is around $410,000, which would require an individual or joint income of $131,500 to afford; while the median household income in Warren is only $75,550. Only 58% of people in Warren are homeowners, which ranks it the 7th lowest in the state, tied with North Providence.

“So for many people who live in the Town of Warren, homeownership is absolutely out of reach. And not by an insignificant amount that maybe a little bit more of a mortgage could overset, but just simply out of reach,” she said.

Attorney Bruce Cox agreed to supply the Town with the financial information by Nov. 17, and to be back before the Planning Board for another public hearing at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 27.

Chairman Massie praised the developer’s ongoing willingness to be open to conversation and compromise.

“There has been a level of willingness to work with the Town and to listen to the concerns,” he said. “This is quite different from situations we’ve had here in the past so I commend all of you for behaving.”