A private developer used the public comment period at the Jamestown Planning Commission's Wednesday meeting to pitch a rival concept for a town redevelopment site, and to ask the town to hold a public forum before it commits to its current plan.
The president of a Jamestown design-build firm told the commission that her company would privately finance an approximately $12 million project on the site, with no grants and no taxpayer money. She spoke during the portion of the meeting reserved for non-agenda items, according to the Jamestown Planning Commission's published meeting recording.
"Our proposal would require no grants and no taxpayer funding," she said, describing a concept with nine high-end residential units and three affordable units.
Local sponsorAffordable photography lessons in Newport, Jamestown, or your town.E.L. Photo RIShe set that against the town-backed proposal for the same site, which she said has been discussed at an overall cost of roughly $5 million, with the town needing to raise about $2.5 million toward it. "As is often the case with public construction projects, costs can increase over the course of construction, and the town's financial responsibility could easily exceed the current estimate," she said. The transcript does not include any town official responding to that cost claim, and the commission did not test it.
The most concrete difference she offered was price. Rather than pricing the affordable units at roughly $500,000, she said, her firm would sell them at $300,000 and absorb the difference. She also argued that other locations in Jamestown may be better suited to a larger affordable housing development, while this site is better suited to a mixed-income project.
Ellen, president of Ellen Design Build, said the company has developed land and built custom homes in Rhode Island for more than 40 years, has developed projects valued at more than $50 million, and recently completed the redevelopment of 78 Narragansett Avenue. She has lived in Jamestown about eight years. She appeared with the company's chief executive, who did not speak.
Her request was procedural, not an application. She asked that the town give her firm the opportunity to present its concept in a public forum before any final decision is made.
The chair said the commission could not respond because the topic was not on the agenda, but noted that the town administrator and the town's zoning and planning official were present and had heard the input. He added that the application has not yet reached the commission and is expected soon.
That timing matters. Later in the meeting, the zoning and planning official told members that the Town Council has referred the project to the Planning Commission for review as a comprehensive permit — a state process that lets an affordable housing proposal seek relief from local zoning in a single consolidated application. She said master-plan approval of the concept would require a public hearing, which would give residents a chance to review the concept plan and let the commission set boundary markers for the request for proposals that follows.
She also described the sequence as already underway. Giving conceptual approval, rather than approving every detail, she said, would put the town "in a much better position to find the right development partner for this project." That framing implies the town has not yet chosen a builder — the point on which the developer's pitch turns.
No vote was taken on the site, and no forum was scheduled. The commission's next regular meeting is September 2, with a second September meeting expected on the 16th. The official said the item may not be teed up for September.


