Earlier this month, the Warren Planning Board theoretically approved a 100% affordable rental housing development proposed for a largely undeveloped lot on Child Street, but only under the condition that the developer reduce the overall number of units from 40 to 25 to decrease the density of the project.

The board made that decision over the protests of the developer, the East Bay Community Development Corporation (a nonprofit affordable housing developer based in Bristol), that doing so would make the project unfeasible.

On Monday, the board met once again to discuss why they have to reconsider that decision at an upcoming special meeting on Feb. 12.

“We have been informed that due to the nature of the law for the Comprehensive Permit, the condition that we placed upon the Penny Lane development, which was based on the zoning acreage, is in fact not allowed within the Comprehensive Permit,” explained chairman Frederick Massie. “So, as a consequence, we don’t have the power to affect that to reduce the size of the number of units in that proposed development.”

Massie said that, according to assistant town solicitor Benjamin Ferreira, under the state law defining the Comprehensive Permit — a legislative tool designed to provide more leeway for housing developers to produce affordable housing units by reducing the amount of local zoning restrictions they must adhere to — making the approval of a project conditional on a factor that would result in the project not being feasible would be ultimately struck down in an appeal to the Rhode Island judiciary.

“Essentially what would happen is this would go to court, and we would lose,” Massie said. “It would cost the Town a significant amount of money and time and effort. It would cost the developer a good deal of time and money and effort, and it would also potentially result in an even larger development because the Comprehensive Permit as written, in fact, allows for an even higher density than the applicant was looking for.”

The development calls for 40 units spread throughout 14 townhouses, nestled into an existing neighborhood on a parcel that used to be largely open space farm land. Many abutters of the project had protested during its multiple hearings that the development would destroy a beloved piece of natural land and bring excessive amounts of people into the area that doesn’t have adequate transportation infrastructure to support them.

Reached on Tuesday morning, Massie said that while the result still ultimately needs to be decided in a couple weeks, the Town is in this position because of the state’s affordable housing laws that he has publicly taken issue with multiple times in the past.

“The problem is that law is completely ignores the right of a town to govern itself. The decision is driven in large part by the limitations of the law. This is one of seven comprehensive permits we’ve had before us that take a tremendous amount of time and effort, and at the same time we are handicapped in our ability to bring the Town’s zoning and planning into play,” he said. “The problem is we keep being faced with decisions that are essentially taken out of our hands.”

In regards to this development, specifically, Massie said he was thankful that the developer had proposed a reasonable design and that there were comparable developments in Barrington to look to.

“Thankfully we have a design here that can fit,” he said. “Is it bigger than we would like it to be? Absolutely. But is it something a lot of thought has gone into? Yes it is. And there are also models in Barrington that indicate that our worst fears might be greater than reality.”

The meeting on Feb. 12 will not be a public hearing where residents can express their opinions on the reconsideration, as no alterations are being made to the proposal. Asked if he wanted to express any thoughts to residents who might be aggrieved by what that reconsideration will likely be, Massie was candid.

“I am sorry that the Rhode Island legislature, in passing these bills, was insensitive to the consequences of their actions,” he said. “We feel we’re upset that our ability to be sensitive to our community has been taken away by laws that were not well thought out, and we’re seeing that.”