Opponents of the proposed construction of a 127-unit apartment development at the former Robin Rug factory building on Thames Street have appealed the 3-2 decision made by the Bristol Planning Board on May 12, which had amounted to a major hurdle cleared for the prospective developer, Brady Sullivan Properties LLC.

Citing seven grievances with the process that led to the approval, the appeal — spearheaded by the Friends of Historic Bristol advocacy group but also signed by William Curtis of Hope Street, James and Jane Lavender of Melrose, Mass., Leif Jensen of Constitution Street and Leonard Place, LLC — will now go before the appeals subcommittee within the Bristol Zoning Board of Review.

The reasons within the appeal are the same reasons that the group was opposed to the development being passed as proposed during its lengthy progression through the Planning Board throughout previous months.

The top reason is a discrepancy between the amount of gross floor area that was calculated by Brady Sullivan’s engineering contractor and the amount of gross floor area that was recognized by the Planning Board when it made its decision last month. The engineering company presented 227,286 square feet of livable space, but the town presented to the Planning Board a number of 296,717 square feet, which is the number reflected in the town’s Tax Assessor’s database, and has implications for the total amount of units that would be allowable to build within the property once an existing density cap is lifted by the Town Council.

“Reliance on the tax assessor’s record, provided by the Town, to establish a GFA of 296,717 square feet, and not the documentation as submitted by the Applicant and its engineer based on actual measurements constitutes reversible error,” the appeal reads.

The appeal also takes issue with the applicant’s proposal, which was accepted by the Planning Board, to pay a $680,000 fee-in-lieu of creating the legally mandated amount of affordable housing units within the development, which states that at least 20 percent must be affordable units.

“There is no option under the Town Code which allows a Developer to pay a ‘fee-in-lieu,’” reads the appeal.

The appeal argues that the procedure which has allowed the Planning Board to approve the project — relying on a slew of zoning changes to be made by the Bristol Town Council, including the allowable density and the amount of commercial space to be available — violates the Bristol Comprehensive Plan.

“Robin Rug is legally defined as a 98-unit project, not the 127-unit project approved by the Board which, as stated above, exceeds the current density requirement under the Bristol Town Code,” the appeal reads.

The appeal also takes issue with Friends of Historic Bristol member Marianne Bergenholtz being barred by the Planning Board from entering a “point of order” clarification during the May 12 meeting, where she attempted to clarify the issue regarding the extra square footage being used to calculate allowable density.

“The appellants seek reversal and remand,” the appeal concludes.