The Planning Board met on Thursday, April 14, in an effort once again to reach consensus on the preliminary plan for the Bristol Yarn Mill, the redevelopment of the Robin Rug property on Thames Street proposed by Brady Sullivan Properties.

Despite appearing to have reached an agreement on a hard maximum of 105 units at their March 16 meeting, the members came to a three to two decision to approve a 127-unit development, with Tony Murgo, Armand Bilotti, and Chairman Jerome Squatrito voting to approve, and Brian Clark and Stephen Katz voting to deny.

“One hundred twenty-seven, that's really the bottom line that we can do,” said attorney John McCoy, speaking for the developer. “And we think that the infrastructure supports that.” They also agreed to the Planning Board’s earlier request of 15 percent of the units earmarked for affordable housing, with three units available in adjacent properties and the rest given as payment in lieu of units, at a rate of $40,000 per unit.

For Brady Sullivan, those 22 extra units are valuable. While much could change between now and the time any proposed units are set to go on the market, a reasonable (low-end) estimate of the average rents they could fetch, based on the rates being charged at the Tourister development in Warren, is about $2,000 a month. That’s $24,000 more per month, or $288,000 a year. Over the next 10 years, those extra 22 units could net Brady Sullivan Properties nearly $3 million in revenue.

Another element of the plan that had been in question, the requirement that 10 percent of the property be accessible to the public, was addressed when the developer indicated they would be giving the Town the lot at the corner of Church and Thames, a request that had been repeatedly raised by some members of the board at earlier meetings. Still, Bilotti seemed surprised by the developer’s sudden willingness to include the lot.

“The applicant has never included that Church Street lot,” he said. “So why all of a sudden is that so important?”

At the end of the presentation, what was clear was that Brady Sullivan representatives had a plan that largely acquiesced to the Board’s many concerns about the parking design, but beyond that, the only real difference between Thursday night’s presentation and the one that was so decisively opposed in March, is that the developers have offered to give the town the small parking lot on the corner of Church and Thames Streets, with an assessed value of $226,000.

Neighbors speak out
The decision was visibly and audibly disappointing to the many community members and abutters who spoke in favor of keeping the density at 105 units.

Jane Lavender of Thames Street spoke in support of the 105-unit plan, noting that the Church Street parking lot was “….a little bit of a surprise for us. We hadn't heard of it before.”

Caroline Jacobus, of Church Street, spoke on behalf of Friends of Historic Bristol, saying that she is very much in favor of the development as proposed at the earlier, March 16 meeting.

“We were glad to hear Mr. Squatrito say that he could go along with 98 to 100 units. We were pleased to hear Mr. Bilotti speak that he thought that the adoption of the 105 density limit was ‘appropriate’, in his words. So we are very concerned to see Sullivan is coming back with a proposal for a density of 127 units,” she said. “This is not a legally supportable proposal…Consequently, we expect that the planning board will abide by the code of Bristol…127 units is not legally supportable; 98 is allowable; 105 is over.”

Michael Sousa of Hope Street, an engineer who has worked professionally with members of the developer’s team in the past, noted that now that the Tourister project, often cited as a comparable to this Yarn Mill development, is complete, residents have been complaining about the quality of the construction.

“We all want to see it developed but…it's not the recession anymore. And I think that other developers would be very interested…I hope they work it out. But if not, don't let them make you think that [Bristol] can't move ahead with that development with someone else.”

Nancy Chase of Constitution Street said, “I can't imagine this not diminishing our quality of life and the value of our properties. And we have paid dear on taxes and we have put thousands and thousands of dollars to maintain our property in accordance with all the rules…And I really ask you to do whatever you can to preserve our quality of life… It's simply not fair for the developer to come here and ask for all this extra density and these other concessions and ignore people who've been paying taxes here for decades.”

One notable exception to the parade of residents asking the Planning Board to keep a cap on the unit density was Gina McDonald of Ferry Road.

“The people who are talking about 98 units versus 105 versus 127 should really acquaint themselves with…the cost of infrastructure and understand what return on investment is for any developer,” she said. “I'm not a member of the enemies of historic Bristol, which are mostly people who are new to town and seem opposed to any kind of development. If you look at what happened to the proposal from Mr. Reuter, at the corner of State Street, it's a shame that wasn't built. So I would encourage you prudently to approve this.”

Diane Williamson, the Director of Community Development whose office supports the increase to 127 units, was not available for comment for this story, but following the public comment portion of the April 14 meeting, she said, “I feel very strongly that this is the right thing to do.”

“I know you are struggling with the density question,” Williamson said. “But we have had lots of tire kickers (for this development) and none have been feasible…they’ve got parking, sewer capacity, the water capacity is there, the amenities that the town is looking for…”
“People work remotely, they may not take their cars out,” she concluded.

The lot has it
With at least two of the five Planning Board members, Murgo and Bilotti, indicating they were ready to change course and approve the 127-unit plan, some residents asked to speak again. “Last month there was a plan for 105 units, then we got a letter that it was 127 units, and nobody knows how that changed,” said Lavender, addressing Williamson and the planning board. “How did that change?”

“We expected development; we supported 98, then 105 units,” she continued. “But greed is taking over and the people who will be hurt are my lovely neighbors…we hear about exceptions for the developer, but we didn’t get exceptions. We expect you to support us.”

Ultimately, the addition of the lot was enough to assuage Jerome Squatrito’s concerns about the density of the development — with the vote at 2-2, he cast the swing vote, suggesting that the offer of the parking lot swayed his decision.

It was a dramatic shift from his position in March, when he said, “I’d go along with 98 to 100 units,” he said. Murgo, too, spoke in favor of 100 units in March.

At the time, with the Board agreeing that the applicant was requesting a unit number significantly higher that what anyone was willing to consider, Teitz recommended a motion to deny. “Between all five of you, you had 105 units max,” he said.

Bilotti and Squatrito were not available to comment for this story; Murgo responded that he would not be able to comment until after the final vote was taken on the motion to approve, currently being drafted by the solicitor. Likewise, Town Council Chairman Nathan Calouro said he will not be able to comment until after the issue comes before the Council, where there will be a first reading followed by a second reading and another opportunity for public comment. Given the timing of the meetings, he does not expect that issue to make the council agenda for several weeks.

For members who stayed the course, frustration
The two members who maintained the previously agreed upon a 105-unit standard, Brian Clark and Stephen Katz, expressed frustration at the unexpected turn around of their planning board colleagues.

“I’m just trying to understand how our last meeting ended with a 5-0 vote for a motion to deny if they did not come down to 105 units,” said Clark. “I just don't understand how this board can vote one way a month ago and then they come back with the parking lot…this really bothers me, that this turned it around for the board…This seems like a pretty big 180.”

“I listened to all of you; I listened to this developer,” said Katz. “They put forth a nice plan. But I listened to all of you that live here in this town that surround this property. My goal has always been, as a member of this board, honesty, ethics, integrity, and to do what's best for this town.”