Minutes
Wednesday, Monday, August 30, 2023 at 6:30pm
Special TOWN COUNCIL Meeting
Barrington Middle School Presentation Room
Barrington, RI
Attachments can be found: https://clerkshq.com/barrington-ri
Video: https://vimeo.com/showcase/9672722
Present: President Carl P. Kustell, Vice President Robert Humm, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Braxton Cloutier
Also, Present: Town Manager Phil Hervey, Assistant Town Solicitor Amy Goins, and Town Clerk Meredith J. DeSisto
Absent: Councilwoman Kate Berard
Council President Kustell called the meeting to order at 6:34 P.M. He announced that this meeting will discuss the property located at 25 Watson Avenue.
President Kustell led us into the Pledge of Allegiance.
President Kustell called on Town Manager Hervey to discuss the materials that were posted on Clerkbase. He said that the Town Manager will discuss the “tweaks” that he has made to the schematics. President Kustell stated that he is cognizant of the carrying costs of approximately $309,000 which needs to be considered. In his opening statement, President Kustell discussed that the property will maintain senior age restricted housing and affordable housing with some single-family housing, with open space preserved on the property. He said that the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) contained many questions from the public. Many of the questions pertained to conservation, and he noted that there are no significant wetlands on site and no significant animal habitats on site. He said whatever we do will certainly comply with CRMC. He said that this site was not, as stated several times during the FTM, purchased for conservation. He mentioned that one advantage to this site is that it is in town control. He said that this site was purchased for senior housing and some affordable housing and it is consistent with our Comprehensive Plans. He said that we will have the opportunity to preserve some open space and that is seen in both plans that the Town Manager will discuss.
Town Manager Hervey discussed that the Planning Board had looked at a denser neighborhood with 30-35 units but that generated a lot of concern. He said that the property that was presented as approved by the planning board, but that he reduced the density down that was originally up to18 units (16-18 units) which included six single family houses, to 14 cottages which will be located off Fremont with a single-family home. They removed lots that were closer to the water on the south side with public passage/path that would run from Watson through the public space and connect to Fremont. Town Manager Hervey discussed more details regarding seniors who would enjoy this area with common greens in the cottage development with parking behind these units. TM Hervey said that he incorporated 14 cottage units, 4 would be affordable units (various size smaller units) which would be built by the developer as opposed to the Planning Board recommendation of one (1) single family affordable home.
Discussion ensued regarding the path from the open space, the security of the park, and the “tweak” of units and size of lots (Planning Board recommended three of the 10-12 units be affordable with a single-family house lot and an affordable home). Town Manager Hervey said that 4 homes would be added to the affordable housing number with 20% LMI, and 15 at market value homes.
Councilwoman Conway commented that we are making no progress on our affordable housing. She asked who manages the senior housing; is there a contract. She asked is there a senior lifestyle program. She said typically when people downsize, they do so because they have mobility issues and need a single floor. They cannot maintain their properties on their own. She commented that these units are really for empty nesters; people that are in their low mid 70’s and they do not have mobility issues. She said that it is important to define the needs of those seniors regarding housing and that we need to think about what an empty nester looks like at a certain age.
Discussion ensued regarding the management of the cottages, would there be a HOA. Town Manager Hervey said that these cottages are for empty nesters. They would be managed by the HOA. He said that this is not seen as a higher level of care, kind of development because it is too small. But it is an option for the empty nesters who may be in their mid-70’s and do not have mobility issues.
Councilwoman Conway said that people who want to downsize are doing it for economical reasons and for their own physical safety. She wanted to make sure we all have the same definitions. She said that not all empty nesters are in the 70’s.
Councilwoman Conway questioned the financial feasibility. She said that we have been pushed back by the architects and the consultants about the financial feasibility of less dense developments. She said she wonders if this had been this plan itself is it financially feasible; and if it only is financially feasible if it is used with market rate properties.
TM Hervey said that the appraisal suggests that this is clearly a financially feasible development. He said that the challenge with the financial feasibility was attracting a developer for that building was a money loser. He said that the rents that are projected would not support the amount of development costs that would go into that building to convert that from a monastery to housing. He said that it would be so expensive that the developer would spend more money from the Town and get no money back from the land. And he said that is when we discovered that there is no financially feasible way to save that building without additional significant investment from the Town or some other funding sources. He discussed the land value as we are giving up significant value in open space but if we develop that open space, you probably will recover more than the sale value because those are those most valuable lots on the property.
Councilwoman Conway stated that if we maintain the open space, we will lose approximately a million dollars to maintain this current plan and not have any additional affordable houses added to our affordable housing stock.
TM Hervey said that it would create 14 new senior units that we haven’t been able to build since the late 90’s, 55 and older. He said that we do not have a state mandate for senior housing. But we do have a state mandate for affordable housing. He said that 4 units are common and we do make progress here and these developments do incrementally increase our affordable housing stock. He said that we are working toward a percentage of 10%, although it has never been enforced and that the last time we added to the new affordable housing units was in 2018/19.
A discussion ensued regarding affordable housing and the capture program in Barrington.
Town Manager Hervey discussed the appraisal (page 44 of the attachments via Clerkbase). He commented that you can see the methodology and how they determined the values. He said that they looked at multiple development scenarios that were presented to the Planning Board, including one that the Planning Board selected. He said that Scenario #2 included a new street from Watson to Fremont. He said that Scenario #3 included no street connection but it included three (3) additional lots. He said that is now open space, it is showing on the plan. The value of the plan that we have already discussed earlier with the first two with a land value of 3.2 million for the ATM unit optimum; 3.2 million is the land value with 19 units; 4.7 million is the land value that the appraisal is estimated for option number with 22 units; 4.9 million is the land value for option three, with 24 units.
Paige Barber, 46 Clark Road questioned parking – it appears to have a lot of buildings and not a lot of parking for 1.5 cars per house.
Ms. Barber said that if you have two people living in a unit there would be two cars. She said that she is not necessarily for preserving the monastery but there are people who want to consider it. She questioned if the site could be a coastal resilience center. She asked could it be hydroponic planning. She said it would be nice, if demolished, it should be clear that it would be non-viability for adaptive reuse. She suggested that some of the affordable housing could be at Belton Court; do we know what they are planning.
President Kustell cautioned that some of the Planning Board members are in attendance and he did not want to suggest one way or the other what the thoughts are from ShineHarmony.
President Kustell said that considering the views of the neighbors that we want to reduce density. He said that he has emphasized home ownership. He said originally the thought is that the Monastery would be used for senior housing and affordable housing with 24 units, low-income rent. He said to get that building in shape is a huge financial burden and a real challenge; it doesn’t serve the purpose of the purchase. He said that is the limitation there. He said that a benefit is that we can tweak this plan as we go forward; the community is deciding. He reiterated that there are Planning Board members present.
Debra Nyser, 30 Adelaide Avenue, questioned if there is senior housing, there may be snowbirds and they may consider short term rentals- Air BnB with their units. She asked will there be a rule. She stated that she has a problem with the appraisal amount since a home just sold on Governor Bradford for over $675,000; and these lots would go for $500,000? She strongly stated no way – we could recoup our money with a value more than that appraisal. The property values are not realistic; they are worth a lot more. She commented that there are just too many cottages and if you put a house with a water view you would easily sell it for over $800,000. She suggested additional ideas (as she was pointing to the screen), and stated that we would definitely make money, at least 2 million. She said that she is concerned with taxes because taxes are income for this town; a residential town that depends on property taxes. We need to be realistic since there are several items (school bonds, fields etc.) that are coming up in the very near future. The money that we make should be used for the whole town, whether it is the fields etc. She questioned why someone who could potentially own a unit would need to pay an HOA and then have others come and use the open space for free. She said that we would make people happy but senior housing, affordable housing, open space, the neighbors happy – it is a win!
Town Manager Hervey commented that we would need to look at those HOA’s. Would those fees maintain the open space. He said the developer could make the path, could build a gazebo we will need to look at this more closely.
Assistant Town Solicitor Goins discussed Ms. Nyser’s question regarding Airbnb’s and the mechanism, and restrictions as a condition of the sale of the property to a developer and it would be normally restricted for the affordable housing units. She said there are a number of ways in which you can control these (scenarios).
President Kustell discussed a potential motion that could be at the Financial Town Meeting (FTM) and he said that it must be more than demolishing the building. He said that the residents need some certainty that this would be the plan and crafting the motion in a way where people would know that there was a limit on density or something that would apply and directly reference the plan in a way that you give people some certainty.
Elizabeth Grieser, 42 Watson Avenue, thanked President Kustell for meeting with the neighbors. She said that he really listened to the concerns. She said that she hopes that he shares the comments with the other councilors. She said there was a lot of common themes. She asked to confirm that the plan ideally is that they would be individually sold not in mass to one developer. So that they would be private families, individual sales, to prevent somebody from then taking the whole thing back to the state and challenging the town’s rules (It is not affordable for us to build 6 family houses, we really want to put up 30 and they will be affordable and the state would allow it.) She said that she agrees that a developer would not want to have an HOA and then fund land that is then available and accessible to the town. She mentioned that there are liability issues on top of the maintenance. If you are putting money in an HOA, you expect that the land is for your use only. She said she would encourage the town to look into either having the town maintain it or donating that portion to the Barrington Land Trust for them to maintain it; with a stipulation it would be accessible with walking trails, not just an overgrown wilderness.
President Kustell said that he thinks he agrees and will rely on the solicitor to make sure that any developer is locked in and would face an enforcement action and if a plan is submitted that the council would not reverse course or change course. He said he thinks you need that security and would rely on the law to do that.
Brian Rua, 232 New Meadow Road, (not speaking as a Planning Board member), asked, does the appraisal factor in any discounted selling costs for an age restricted unit. Or is it conducted in low-income units; are they age restricted.
Town Manager Hervey said that he made it clear that they are age restricted units.
TR Rimoshytus, 1 Howard Street asked if the Town Manager’s plan is to go with the plan located within the attachments (Clerkbase) on page 2, with the 3 houses. He suggested to not put open space. He said let’s get back all of our money. He said that we have a heavy burden to keep up with all of our fields and everything else. He questioned, are we the realtor? Managers? How are we going about this? Or are we just making rules and regulations for a contractor to come in and build? Are we selling them as individual lots? Discussion ensued.
Councilman Cloutier said that this discussion has been going on for over 2 years. He said that these questions have been posed and answered over and over again. He said that it is important to remember that this process is to engage the public and this has been done in the past. He said we are trying to nail down what we want to bring to the town.
TR Rimoshytus suggested to add another house where the open space is and not have open space. He said that way our DPW is not taking on more than they can handle they would be able to keep up.
President Kustell said that the density has gone down because of the public feedback and we wanted to respect the neighbors and their views. He said theoretically you could certainly make more money on the property if you put additional homes.
Allan Klepper, 3 Henry Drive said the inevitable destruction or demolition of the monastery lends a question for a memorial on the property, “that this was the sight of.”
President Kustell said that his thinking is that there should be an acknowledgement.
Laura Young, 14 Manning Drive, asked what the accessibility and design of the cottages, one or two bedrooms.
Town Manager Hervey said that they are senior friendly with a first floor primary and bath and guest rooms on the second floor for guests. The cottage is designed for 55 and older and some of the principles that we apply to the zoning or with developer guidance similar to Alan’s Cove. The design is to consider wheelchairs and walkers.
Ms. Young commented when you look at this age friendly study, years ago, the senior that we helped via a focus group was not just senior specific housing but multifaceted situations. She said that people do not want to be isolated in a group. They want to age in their own home. She is glad that we are thinking about a continuing care community because just by nature it becomes institutionalized. She said there are ways that people can adapt to home environments that are basically set up so that they have one level options in the event of any kind of an emergency.
Ann Strong, 55 Teed Avenue, discussed the comment regarding tax revenue and perpetuity for the homes that will potentially be built on this property, single family homes, and their money grabbers. She said that you don’t make any money from property taxes because of the carrying costs with these properties (cost of education of children, plus all the other services that the town provides).
Ms. Strong agreed with Ms. Conway wholeheartedly. She said you are adding 15 units to get affordable units. If affordable is what you want, then, put a development that is entirely affordable. Otherwise, the best use is open space. She said she doesn’t think once you subdivide that you can prevent a developer from buying multiple lots and suing the town for not allowing him to do what he wants to do. She said you would be in trouble with the affordable housing legislation.
Mary Alyce Gasbaro, 14 Robbins Drive, said she does not live in this neighborhood (Watson/Fremont) but spent a lot of time walking babies down Adelaide to Clark to Watson. If this plan is fine with those that live in the area, it is their territory. She said that she is old and she lives in a gated community in Florida and there are no houses that look like these houses. Everyone lives on one floor. Everyone has a two-car garage. She said that older people will have to push the snow off their car in the winter. She said are you talking about affordable housings for low-income people, or are you talking about workforce housing? She asked do you know the term is workforce housing and it is for those 55 and older and that they are age restricted. She said no developer wants to build workforce housing because they are building for old people who come in with at least a half million dollars.
President Kustell said that workforce housing is something you will see in that plan and we are looking to meet affordable criteria and age restricted housing.
Ms. Gasbarro asked what is affordable criteria?
Councilman Cloutier defined affordable housing and it is based on median income of the community. It is housing which is deemed affordable to those with a household income at or below the median as rated by the national government by a recognized affordability index. Median income in Barrington is $160,000.
Town Manager Hervey said to clarify affordable housing means it is qualifying based on the state definition of affordable housing. And that is, for sale units it is up to 120% of the area household income, and includes the Metropolitan Statistical Area, which goes from Providence to Fall River to Barrington, probably more in Bristol. It is a large area. And some sales are approximately $300-350,000, this is the higher end of an affordable unit which is state law.
Ms. Gasbarro said that teachers, police and firefighters cannot afford the homes in Barrington. Why should we provide houses for people from out of town to come in and buy one when we are not doing it for our own employees. She said that most of our employees don’t live in town anymore.
Thomas Bruekner, 4 Ellis Street, asked whether the plan that you have presented, have you determined the appraisal and if the town will be able to recover the costs for buying the property or not.
Town Manager Hervey said that it depends on what option we pursue. He said that we don’t quite cover the cost with either one of these plans as presented tonight. But you can envision that we are investing in that open space. The lots that could be built there would be worth more in the appraisal, we would easily cover the purchase price and we could clear another million dollars on top of it.
Mr. Bruekner asked, if we demolish the Monastery is that included in the appraisal?
Town Manager Hervey said that it does not. He said that it might be around $700,000.00, and maybe at the end we make 2.5 million.
Town Manager Hervey said because of the open space we are investing more than a million dollars in protecting that open space.
Mr. Bruekner asked how do you determine or how will the plan that you are going to go forward with is the only one on the table?
President Kustell said that there is only one plan approved by the Planning Board and this is Phil’s modification.
Mr. Bruekner questioned if the Town Council would approve the plan, in February.
President Kustell said that he mentioned February because there is a special FTM in which we anticipate for the School side. It would be a benefit to the town and to our town clerk not to have multiple special meetings, and also not to spend another $309,000 not to delay this longer. He would like to have the school vote and this vote on the same night at the same FTM to move the process forward. He said that if the school delays till the next official FTM he would like to call a special FTM for this property.
Mr. Bruekner said what he has heard tonight at this meeting from one gentleman is that we should not have the open space, maybe include some additional housing, to cover the cost. Or possibly not have any open space and make some money on the property for the town. He said that he also heard from others at this meeting that there should be more affordable housing on the property, which if you didn’t have the open space, you could do more affordable housing, and you could actually get more money by putting another house or two. He said there is no other plan on the table to do that right now. So he said when you go to the FTM, right now, this is it. This is what people would approve or not.
President Kustell said we could send multiple plans to the FTM but he said he would rather not do that for clarity.
Mr. Bruekner said his suggestion is to have two plans, one that meets the financial needs to recover the money and this one.
Diane Lipscomb, 6 Watson Avenue, said that she would like to underscore a few things. But first she thank President Kustell, especially with the large number of meetings, and addressing a number of designers came to a consensus plan that she said that she is in favor. The open space is an incredible piece of land with an incredible view. She said that this is precious space, let’s keep it for the community. She said that she is concerned with the demolition of the building and the safety around that building. She said that the person that spoke about those over 55 and that there is no covering for the cars, she said that other points such as the utilization of the buildings, that there is no bus service, there are very few sidewalks so it is dangerous.
President Kustell said let me give credit where credit is due, it was Councilor Conway that requested this meeting.
Diane Lipscomb, 6 Watson Avenue, said that she would like to underscore a few things. But first she thanked President Kustell, especially with the large number of meetings, and addressing a number of designers that came to a consensus plan. The open space is an incredible piece of land with an incredible view. She said that this is precious space, let’s keep it for the community. She said that she is concerned with the demolition of the building and the safety around that building. She said that the person that spoke about those over 55 said that there is no covering for the cars, that there is no bus service, there are very few sidewalks and it is dangerous.
President Kustell said let me give credit where credit is due, it was Councilor Conway that requested this meeting.
Mary Grenier, 10 Watson Avenue, discussed the history of these meetings over the past 2 years and thanked those that helped hold these meetings. She said that the comprehensive plan is important because it talks about keeping your neighborhood as designed. She said that we have accomplished creating open space and shouldn’t be looked at negatively, it is a benefit to our town and to the environment.
Blaze Rein, 33 Water Way, said there are the same voices in the room. We really need community-wide input. He said that the ad hoc committee seemed to generate that and at the FTM. He said he sent a list of grants (totaled 25 million) and we have heard a response from the town nor did they pursue them. He said we have yet to pitch to the town a model that shows open space that is financially feasible utilizing these grants that are available. He requested that before we put this to FTM one of these plans and would like to see more than one family who would get a water view and would like to see the whole community be able to use the space. He said that there is plenty that can address security concerns, beach parking and folks that use the property at night. He said that if an HOA was to manage the open space that may mean a lot of chemicals, fertilizer, running down the hill into our tide pool and wetlands.
Discussion ensued regarding grants that are available.
Michele Tourgeon, 27 Adelaide Avenue suggested offering more than one plan with alternative use of space.
Discussion ensued with putting forth additional plans which require certain notices relating to proposals for the FTM pertaining sale of property. Assistant Town Solicitor said that there is not unlimited authority for the FTM to consider any and all motions relating to Watson Avenue with each motion requiring a review to ensure that it is in line with the FTM’s power, limited power under both state law and the Town’s charter (not only the town council).
Ann Strong, 55 Teed Avenue, discussed that she put forth a motion and it was out of order. She requested that the solicitor provide some outline of what an appropriate amendment would be.
Discussion ensued regarding that the Charter empowers the Council and what the powers can and cannot happen at an FTM. Discussion ensued.
Debra Nyser, 30 Adelaide Ave, discussed that she hears from others that we need more community involvement – you can’t force people to come to these meetings. She continued by listing the lengths to which these meetings are advertised and open to all.
Councilwoman Conway requested that we could investigate some of these grants or opportunities that we are losing to maintain the open space. She said that the open space is key to the enjoyment of the property. She discussed that there has been community members that put together a list of potentially 25 million in grant opportunities.
Motion by Councilwoman Conway seconded by VP Humm that the Council request the administration to investigate potential open space grant opportunities both within the list of grant opportunities that were provided to them by the community, but also if there are other federal funds that the town knows about that community members may like for them to investigate.
VP Humm questioned the list of grants with a potential worth of 25 million.
Town Manager Hervey said that it would require quite a bit of homework to go through 25 million dollars’ worth of grant opportunities. Discussion ensued regarding state grants, conservation grants, restrictions, challenges, and requirements.
Councilwoman Conway stated that this is my subject matter expertise, as she is a fundraiser and works for a conservation organization. She said that she has been hearing loud and clear that we need to have a financially viable solution and do not want to risk losing that open space. She discussed that there may be organizations, foundations and private individuals who are willing to support preserving this space. She discussed the responsibilities of being a coastal town and that we need to take a look at putting additional funding in the town’s budget to preserve the space. And she said that we have a number of different citizens who have put the time and effort into collecting the list of potential grants.
President Kustell discussed that he is concerned with the time element and that we are paying $309,000 a year. He explained that grants are a lengthy process, time is money and that is a big concern.
Councilwoman said that the FTM is in six months and that the grants could be investigated and direct the town administration to investigate grants that have already been vetted initially to see if there is an actual fit. She said that she is not asking us to apply for them. I'm asking that we do our due diligence, to make sure that if there is open space that we are going to be able to cover the cost. So the town does not find itself in a position where it's forced to overdevelop the property.
President Kustell asked only with regard to the limited portion of the planning board. Then he said that he is opposed to the motion.
VP Humm said that it is always worth exploring but he said that he shares the same concern with that of President Kustell in terms of timing. He said that he understands the resource constraints that our town has with respect to the time. He said that he would like to see as much open space as possible but he said that he wants this to be a cost-effective project. He asked if an amendment to the motion would be accepted, to look into the list to the extent of the resources are available and provide whatever information is available within reason by our next meeting.
Town Manager said that the next meeting is on September 11th a quick turnaround. He discussed the time frame and that there is not a lot of bandwidth. He said that we have a lot that the town is dealing with throughout every department but we will try to do our best to get something maybe in October/November.
Assistant Town Solicitor Goins that the motion has been seconded and if Councilwoman Conway would like to amend her motion or just see how this motion fares. She said in terms of timing it may help with what is potentially coming before the FTM. She discussed Charter 1-3-3 in which the Council must first pass an ordinance that specifies at least generally the terms and conditions of the sale. The FTM has to consider and approve it. She said in terms in timing if it is in February you would have a developer potentially identified and a purchase and sale agreements. We all should assume that there is a lot of work that needs to take place before the FTM with a new ordinance which requires an introduction and then public hearing.
Discussion ensued with the timing, the yearly costs of $309,000, potential introduction and public hearing of an ordinance by the Council.
Councilwoman Conway stated that a list of grants was provided from her. She said that her motion is necessary and it is specific for Watson. Discussion ensued regarding the timing of FTM’s, the purpose of the purchase at the FTM, and the motion that was made by Councilwoman Conway and seconded by VP Humm and not supported by President Kustell.
VP Humm stated that in terms of the materials before us, he supports the plan before us (and some things that can be tinkered with in the plan) with or without the grants. He said that the town has been excellent at securing grants, at finding money, achieving grants but he said that he is hesitant about the timing. He said that one shouldn’t delay the other and that they can be done in parallel. He said that he accepts the commitment from the town manager and this is a commitment without needing to direct the town do anything but a commitment that the town will explore reasonable funding sources and opportunities that would subsidize this project (this applies to anything the town does). He said that he would be okay with a commitment rather than needing to direct the administration to do something.
Councilwoman Conway clarified her motion it is not to actually apply for all these grants, it is to investigate the list to see if any of them are viable options.
Discussion ensued regarding a proposed amendment to the motion. VP Humm stated that he didn’t formally amend the motion but was talking through the options.
President Kustell said that in his opinion there wasn’t an amendment unless Ms. Conway amended her motion.
Councilwoman clarified her motion: She said she would like “to direct the town administration to review the list of grants provided to them by, I believe it came directly from Blaze Rein, within the next three or four months for viable opportunities for grant applications, as it relates to the monastery project.
Councilwoman Conway said that Town Manager Hervey said they he could review the list within three to four months.
VP Humm said that he is in a difficult spot because it was language that he proposed but said that he is not sure if he is going to support the motion when it comes to a vote. VP Humm said from a procedural standpoint, there was a motion we can vote and he didn’t think that there was an amendment unless Miss Conway amended, she can amend her motion…
Councilwoman Conway stated that she clarified her motion “to determine if there are viable opportunities for grant applications.”
Motion by Councilwoman Conway seconded by VP Humm to direct the town administration to review the list of grants provided to them by, I believe it came directly from Blaze Rein, within the next three or four months for viable opportunities for grant applications, as it relates to the monastery project. The motion failed, 2- 2- 0- 1, two (2) in favor, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, two (2) opposed, VP Humm and President Kustell, no recusals and one (1) abstention (Councilwoman Berard (absent)).
Adjourn:
Vice President Humm adjourned the meeting at 8:53pm. The motion passed unanimously.
____________________________________
Meredith J. DeSisto, CMC
Barrington Town Clerk