Developer outlines 43-unit plan for 11 Main Street, parking and property ownership remain unresolved

A developer presented a proposal for 43 residential units at 11 Main Street and told the West Warwick Town Council on Oct. 7 the project will likely include studios and one-bedroom apartments and requires roughly 43 parking spaces to support the plan.

The presentation was given by attorney Sam Benjay Redlich on behalf of proposed developer Amanda Cortoleso. Redlich said the main outstanding issue is parking and described several approaches the team is considering: reconfiguring spaces on-site, adding roughly nine parallel spaces on an adjacent street, seeking use of an existing municipal lot behind the post office, and using a partially abandoned old right-of-way often called Old Legion Way (also referenced in materials as Leisure Way or McElroy) that may be state-owned. “We’re hoping that we can use that as sort of a permitting parking area,” Redlich said, summarizing early discussions with town staff and DOT representatives.

Town planner Marilyn and other staff flagged several constraints. Marilyn noted the redevelopment agency and planning board must review changes because the plan would alter parking on town-owned parcels and change street parking patterns. She also warned that some options may be limited in winter months when on-street spaces are restricted for snow removal. The council and staff repeatedly emphasized the team must determine whether the parcel called Old Legion Way was legally transferred to the town by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (DOT) after a state road project. Redlich said the developer’s title search did not find a clear conveyance to West Warwick; he said DOT had been unhelpful so far and that seeking a declaratory judgment could be an option if ownership cannot be confirmed.

Redlich told the council the proposal includes 43 units primarily made up of studios and one-bedroom apartments under an adaptive-reuse approach. He said Rhode Island law and recent state direction reduce required parking ratios for adaptive-reuse and low- to moderate-income housing in downtown locations served by transit, which informs the developer’s parking assumptions. “So our thinking is that this is kind of a bit into that. It's in the city. It's on a bus line,” Redlich said.

The developer also noted the property is subject to a historic preservation covenant that requires review by the Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission (RIHPC). Redlich said he has discussed the project with the attorney general’s office and RIHPC and believed that commission was “kind of like what we did so far” and that “I think we’ll be okay with them,” but added formal approvals remain pending.

Council members and staff asked detailed questions about where tenants and visitors would park, how on-street permit parking or town-owned spaces would be managed, and who would enforce any permit-only arrangements. Staff cautioned that if the town were to supply municipal parking to a private development it could create precedent and liability concerns. Town Manager and planning staff urged more coordination with the redevelopment agency and the planning board; Marilyn said the redevelopment agency was the project’s current land-use review contact and that plans should return to planning after council input.

Redlich said the developer hopes to finalize architectural plans and move to the redevelopment agency and planning board within a matter of months but cautioned the schedule depends on obtaining clarity about parking and DOT’s response about the old right-of-way. He estimated two to three months before a more definitive approval request and said the team would try to avoid significant additional design costs until there is confidence on parking and covenant issues.

Council members urged residents and the developer to keep communicating as plans are refined. Several councilors and staff emphasized that any use of town-owned parking would need an explicit council decision and careful safeguards. The council did not take a vote on the proposal at the meeting; the presentation remained at the informational and pre-application stage.

Ending: The developer will continue coordination with the redevelopment agency, planning staff and DOT. Council members asked that plans be returned to the redevelopment agency and the council after the planning board and RIHPC have provided formal feedback. No formal approvals or land-use permits were issued at the Oct. 7 meeting.