Minutes
TOWN COUNCIL
Monday, December 4, 2023 at 7:00PM
Barrington Town Hall Council Chamber
Video: https://vimeo.com/showcase/9672722
Attachments can be found: https://clerkshq.com/barrington-ri
AN EXECUTIVE MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
Present: President Carl Kustell, Vice President Robert Humm, Councilwoman Kate Berard, Councilwoman Annelise Conway and Councilman Braxton Cloutier
Also, Present: Town Manager Phil Hervey, Assistant Town Solicitor Andy Teitz, and Town Clerk Meredith J. DeSisto
Department Heads: Business and Finance Director Kathy Raposa, Department of Public Works Director Alan Corvi, Fire Chief Gerald Bessette, Human Resources Director Mari-Ann Oliveira, Library Director Kristin Chin, Planning, Building and Resilience Director Teresa Crean, Police Chief Michael Correia, Recreation and Senior Services Director Michele Geremia, and Tax Assessor Jay Drew
Council President Kustell called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
President Kustell asked special guests, Cub Scout Pack 1 to lead us with the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA # 3 LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
(Approved at the Town Council meeting on December 6, 2021. (Read into the record by President Kustell.)
“Aquene (Peace) We recognize the unique and enduring relationship that exists between Indigenous Peoples and their traditional territories. We acknowledge that we are in the ancestral homeland of the Pokanoket Tribe within the original territory of the Pokanoket Nation. We commit to ongoing efforts to recognize, honor, reconcile and partner with the Pokanoket people whose ancestral lands and water we benefit from today. Aquene (Peace)”
DISCUSS AND ACT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA:
All items with an asterisk (*) are routine by the Town Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a council member or citizen so request, and the request is for good cause in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
President Kustell asked if any council member would like to remove an item from the Consent Agenda, items #4-12.
Vice President Humm requested to remove agenda item #7 Reappointments to Boards and Commissions for recusal and item #5 Updates and Events.
Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Vice President Humm to accept the Consent Agenda, Items #4 – #12, except for agenda item # 5 Updates and Events and item #7 Reappointments to the Boards and Commissions. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.
Vice President Humm requested to remove item #5 Updates and Events to acknowledge all of the efforts that made the Tree Lighting such a success. VP Humm acknowledge the work of Michele Geremia and all of her staff, the Department of Public Works and especially to Mike Sousa and Anthony Lombardi, the Fire Department with a unique delivery of our very special guest Santa. He thanked the members of the Police Department and he especially thanked one of our local businesses, Vienna Bakery, for providing cookies for decorating. He said it was a lot of fun!
President Kustell thanked Vice Present Humm for replacing him since he was travelling outside of the state.
Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Councilwoman Berard to accept agenda #5 Events and Updates. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.
Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Councilman Cloutier to accept agenda #7 Reappointments of the Boards and Commissions. The motion passed in favor 4-0-1-0, President Kustell, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, one (1) recusal, Vice President Humm, and no abstentions.
*AGENDA ITEM #5 RECEIVE UPDATES AND EVENTS:
It was voted unanimously to receive the Updates and Events with the above motion regarding the Consent Agenda as listed below:
· Tree Planting & Removal: November 1, 2022-October 31, 2023 – 101 trees removed/104 trees planted.
· Thursday, November 30th – Last Day to Remove Boats from Town Property.
· Friday, December 1st and 8th – Barrington Neighborhood Walk for Exercise and Conversation sponsored by Barrington Village at 9:30 a.m. Meeting every Friday, no registration required.
· Saturday, December 2nd – Town of Barrington Tree Lighting, at Town Hall beginning at 2 p.m. Featuring children’s activities, musical performances, and Santa’s arrival. Ending with the tree lighting at 5 p.m.
· Wednesday, December 6th – Winter Wellness Walk – Sowams Woods (South Lake Drive) sponsored by the Barrington Land Conservation Trust, 9 to 10 a.m. Registration (click here) is required for this free event.
· Friday, December 8th – Chanukah
· Saturday, December 9th – Local Brew Coffeehouse with The Atwater Donnelly Trio at Bay Spring Community Center, 7:00 to 9:00 p.m.
· Sunday, December 10th – Enigmatica (A Plucked-String Ensemble of Baroque, Brazilian, and Americana) performing “Spiral Moons” at Bay Spring Community Center, 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.
· Monday, December 11th through Friday, December 15th – Metal Collection Week. Call the Department of Public Works (DPW) to schedule pickup, 247-1907.
· Friday, December 15th – Yard Waste Collection Ends
· Friday, December 22nd – Christmas Eve observed, Town Hall/Peck Center closed; DPW closes at 11:00am
· Monday, December 25th – Christmas Day – Town Hall, Peck Center, DPW Library and Schools closed.
· Monday, January 1st – New Year’s Day - Town Hall, Peck Center, DPW Library and Schools closed.
*AGENDA ITEM #6 ACCEPT RESIGNATIONS: (none)
*AGENDA ITEM #7 APPROVE REAPPOINTMENT(S) TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
It was voted to approve the reappointments of the Boards and Commissions as listed below and refer to the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above.
o Laura Lawrence as a full member with a term expiration date of December 31, 2026.
o Frances Rasmussen as a full member with a term expiration date of December 31, 2026.
o Vincent Wicker as a full member with a term expiration date of December 31, 2026.
· Building Board of Review
o Patrick Connors as a full member with a term expiration date of December 31, 2028.
o John Luttrell as a full member with a term expiration date of December 31, 2028.
· Harbor Commission
o Frank Hearn as a full member with a term expiration date of December 31, 2026.
o Michael Reuter as a full member with a term expiration date of December 31, 2026.
· Juvenile Hearing Board: (Tabled from 11-6-23) (See motion above accepting the resignations and that Vice President Humm recused.
o Jack Anderson with a term expiration date of November 30, 2026.
o Carrie Newton reappointed with a term expiration date of November 30, 2026
o Maria Crosby reappointed with a term expiration date of November 30, 2026.
· Park & Recreation Committee
o Anthony P. Arico as a full member with a term expiration date of December 31, 2026.
o Fletcher Thomson as a full member with a term expiration date of December 31, 2026.
o Geoff Turner as a full member with a term expiration date of December 31, 2026.
*AGENDA ITEM #8 ACCEPT THE MINUTES FROM THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 6, 2023.
It was voted to accept the Town Council minutes listed above. See the full motion(s) accepting the Consent Agenda above and the motion to accept the minutes.
*AGENDA #9 ADOPT THE MONTHLY DEPARTMENT REPORTS (OCTOBER ’23):
Business and Finance Director, Fire Chief, Human Resources, Library Director, Police Chief/Animal Control Official, Public Works Director, Planner/Building and Resiliency, Recreation and Senior Services Director, Tax Assessor and Town Clerk
It was voted to adopt the monthly department reports from October ’23. See the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above.
*AGENDA ITEM #10 APPROVE ABATEMENT LIST:
It was voted to approve the Abatement List in the amount of $52.57 and as described therein. See the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above.
*AGENDA ITEM #11 APPROVE SURPLUS PROPERTY:
It was voted to approve the following from the list below as surplus property.
· Fire Department: 2006 KME Fire Apparatus/Pumper
*AGENDA ITEM #12 ACKNOWLEDGE CORRESPONDENCE:
It was voted to acknowledge the correspondence. See the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above and the motion accepting this agenda item.
· BAY Team Monthly Report
· BCWA Monthly Reports -no report
AGENDA ITEM #13 DISCUSS AND ACT: INTERVIEWS AND APPOINTMENTS:
- Harbor Commission: (1 vacancy: 1 full member with a term expiration date of December 31, 2024.)
o Interview: Brian Morley
Motion by Councilman Cloutier and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to appoint Brian Morley to the Harbor Commission to serve as a full member, term ending December 31, 2024. The motion passed in favor 4-0-0-1, President Kustell, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, no recusals and one abstention, Vice President Humm (absent for the vote).
- Park & Recreation Committee: (1 vacancy: 1st alternate with a term expiration date of December 31, 2026.)
o Interview: Solange Morrissette
Motion by Councilman Cloutier and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to appoint Solange Morrissette to the Park & Recreation Committee to serve as 1st alternate, term ending December 31, 2026. The motion passed in favor 4-0-0-1, President Kustell, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, no recusals and one abstention, Vice President Humm (absent for the vote).
- Resilience and Energy Committee: (2 vacancies: 1 full member and1st alternate with a term expiration date of December 31, 2026.)
o Interview: Bradley Zepko
Motion by Councilwoman Cloutier and seconded by Vice President Humm to appoint Bradley Zepko to the Resilience and Energy Committee to serve as a full member, term ending December 31, 2026. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.
AGENDA ITEM # 14 DISCUSS AND ACT: ORDINANCES
· INTRODUCTION:
o 2023-13 An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 33 Personnel Policies; Article V Attendance and Leave; §33-33 Establishment of sick leave credit (to be removed).
TM Comment: The Town recommends adopting this ordinance to eliminate a sick leave credit that is inconsistent with current policy.
Motion by Vice President Humm and seconded by Councilman Cloutier to introduce Ordinance 2023-13 amending Chapter 33 Personnel Policies; Article V Attendance and Leave; §33-33 Establishment of sick leave credit, and to schedule a Public Hearing for Monday, January 8, 2024. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.
· PUBLIC HEARING:
2023-11: An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 33 Personnel Policies; Article V Attendance and Leave - §33-34 Military duty leave
TM Comment: In 2004, the Town Council voted to give full-time employees on active military duty health insurance and pay differential. This policy should have been put into an ordinance, which is why the Town is requesting adoption of Ordinance No. 2023-11.
President Kustell opened the Public Hearing for 2023-11: An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 33 Personnel Policies; Article V Attendance and Leave - §33-34 Military duty leave.
President Kustell asked if any anyone from the Town Council wished to comment, there was no one.
President Kustell asked if anyone from the public wished to speak on the proposed ordinance. No one came forward.
President Kustell closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Councilwoman Conway and seconded by Councilwoman Berard to adopt Ordinance #2023-11, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 33 Personnel Policies; Article V Attendance and Leave - §33-34 Military duty leave, as presented. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.
· 2023-12: An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 185 Zoning
TM Comment: The Town needs to update the Zoning Ordinance to comply with new State laws going into effect January 1, 2024. Zoning Ordinance amendments require Town Council adoption following a public hearing. [There are also revisions the Planning Board will need to make to the Town’s Land Development and Subdivision Regulations (no Council action required).]
Ordinance No. 2023-12 is based on the Planning Board’s original recommended Zoning Ordinance amendments. The Planning Board, however, met on Monday, November 27th, to complete a more thorough review to make its final recommendation on the amendments, which will be presented at the Council’s public hearing.
For more information, please see the memorandum from Teresa Crean, Director of Planning, Building and Zoning.
President Kustell opened the Public Hearing for 2023-12: An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 185 Zoning
President Kustell asked if any anyone from the Town Council wished to comment, there was no one.
President Kustell stated that this was a major bill that was passed in the RI General Assembly regarding a package of housing bills and we are simply are required to pass from the state. President Kustell stated that there is some discretion in certain areas but for the most part, we are facing a change in affordable housing at the state level and are adapting those changes that our Solicitor, Town Planner and the Town Manager have worked very hard on doing in terms of crafting language that would be suitable to make sure we are compliant with what are now state requirements.
President Kustell introduced the Director of Planning, Building and Resilience Teresa Crean.
Ms. Crean said that the materials that are in Clerkbase are that of the proposed ordinance (redline version as well) and a memo from her and her Assistant Isabelle Gillibrand outlining items of specific review (use table Special Use (S) to be switched to Permitted (P) or Not Permitted (N)) but a more in-depth review of the use table will come with the Comprehensive Plan update to take place over the next year. She said that the memo also provides a summary table of the change, the reference in the zoning ordinance and page location, Section B/B1 which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a Use Table of Changes and Section C contains a Review of Definitions.
Planning Director Crean discussed that specific items were addressed in the zoning ordinance, use table, the focus was that every single use and every single zoning category and attempted to change anything that was indicated as a special use permit to either permitted or not permitted. She said if we were not able to do that the State requires that we are to create a clear and objective criterion for making decisions on future special use permit applications. She said that the legislation that was passed in June of 2023 is intended to remove barriers to housing production in RI across all 30 cities and towns. She continued by stating that the RI Housing League of Cities and Towns worked to make resources available to the Town’s to expedite the decision-making process but that there is still a lot of work that we had to do locally to meet these requirements. Ms. Crean distributed a Timeline of the action steps that were taken since June of 2023 including information on the continued plan in 2024 and 2025.
Planning Director Crean said that the Planning Board held regular business meetings and discussed the recommendations on the items of modifications to existing properties and inclusionary zoning. She explained that we were successful with an application to receive technical assistance in the form of a consultant service that RI Housing provided to towns at no cost. She said that they worked with a group called Libra Planners out of Providence who took on all of the writing tasks within the ordinance to make sure all was done thoroughly and correctly.
Planning Director Crean said that she had to give a shout out to our Solicitors, who have guided us through this process and to our Planning/Zoning Assistant Isabelle Gillibrand in organizing all of this for our Planning Board.
She said that the Planning Board must hold a public hearing to adopt the Land Development Subdivision Regulations as well as they are required to hold a public hearing for what you see in front of you this evening regarding the Zoning Ordinance.
Assistant Town Solicitor Andy Teitz thanked Teresa and Isabelle as they did a tremendous amount of work and time on the zoning change. Solicitor Teitz described the Housing Legislation that was passed in the RI General Assembly in June. He said that there were over 13 separate bills and over 300 pages of legal wording. He said that the main goal of this legislative package is to basically encourage housing, and affordable housing. It is not limited just to affordable housing, it also has a lot of things that encourage development of housing, with the theory behind it being if there is more housing overall that will help to reduce the prices, if there is more supply that will help with the pricing. He said it is an attempt to streamline and standardize many of the procedures. It also does affect commercial development.
Assistant Solicitor Teitz strongly stated that if you do not amend your ordinance, then it will become law on January 1, 2024, without you and therefore this is why the Town(s) needed to review the importance of amending our ordinance. He stated that we will probably need to look at additional changes in the future because a lot this is brand new and you can probably see it in front you in the spring. He said that the zoning ordinance should be a “living document”, it should not be frozen in time. He said, as did the Planning Director Crean, that the Planning Board will need to adopt the Land Development and Subdivision Regulations, procedures will change.
Assistant Solicitor Teitz stated that notice will be by first class mail and not by certified mail, which is actually a good thing which will cut down on the costs. He stated that many of the changes have to do with affordable ho. He said that the State Housing Appeals Board, of which the Town of Barrington has spent a fair amount of time before has been eliminated, they will go out of business on December 31 of this year. But instead, appeals from comprehensive permits for low- and moderate-income housing will go right to the Superior Court with a special land use calendar. The idea being that the judge on that calendar will have expertise who will develop expertise in this area and also be able to expedite items.
President Kustell questioned the change in procedure, and asked the Solicitor if he is likely to see a change in either the speed of outcomes or the substance of outcome and what is the rationale behind that change.
Assistant Solicitor Teitz said that he does not know the rationale behind it but believes probably, the speed at which it will be processed, once it gets to the appeals process. He said that this will apply to land use appeals and appeals of variances, which will all go to one place. He said that it depends on the selection of the Judge and if there are too many items, it can slow the process. He discussed that the State Housing Appeals Board, by design, had a bias, it was pro housing production. He believes that the decision maker will be someone who has life tenure and is not biased one way or another and hopefully is less susceptible to political pressure.
Assistant Solicitor Tietz continued to discuss the changes, a major change is to the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Act with the elimination of the Master Plan Stage for comprehensive permits. He said currently, comprehensive permits go through the same multistage process as major land development project are major subdivision, they have a pre-application meeting. He said that it is an internal meeting, then they go to a Master Plan with a Public Hearing. He said now they will go straight to preliminary, a pre-application stage and then to a public hearing, where people get noticed and hopefully be “one stop shopping”, and it may be harder to deny them as long as you are meeting local needs (which now has a specific definition). He said so additionally, inclusionary zoning is something that has been a decision point that is left for the community – it is optional whether to have it or not. But what is not optional is that they have set forth a mandatory density bonus for inclusionary zoning, which allows for more units overall, basically a two to one ration for every affordable unit. He said that the developer get two more market rate units. He said that some communities have taken it out and some have left it in. He said there seems to be a consensus that it may not be used much, especially in Barrington. He said that you do not have a lot of large open plats for large subdivisions, where it could come into play. He said that the Planning Board has decided to leave it as an option.
Assistant Town Solicitor said another change, alluded by Planning Director Crean, is special use permits and the use table. He said since 1991 if a town had a special use permit you were supposed to have specific standards for that particular special use and if “shall” was part of the language and there was no penalty but with this legislation it is mandatory because the penalty is, if you have a special use permit, listed in your use table, you do not have specific and objective standards, then that use is just deemed to be permitted by right. This was one of the most key items that the Town had to do before January 1, 2024. He continued discussing other changes, “Unified Development”, at one time the applicant would go to Planning, then to Zoning and back to Planning. They will only have to go to Planning for Unified Development and the Planning Board will apply the zoning standards, which creates more work for the Planning Board. He commented that the Planning Board will be trained in January to understand what zoning and special variances/standards are to be applied. He said one other item is Zoning Modifications, it was in the law before but Barrington did not have it. If it were a small dimensional relief on the property, they could apply for this modification, the zoning enforcement officer would review and then send certified mail to the neighbors. If any neighbors objected it would automatically go to the Zoning Board. He said the General Assembly has changed that and we don’t have a choice with modifications they are allowed up to 15% of the dimensional requirement, this is mandatory and if 5% or less the zoning enforcement officer can grant it without providing notice. But they only have 15 days in which to respond. If they object, then it goes to the Zoning Board – it becomes an administrative matter. He said that cities and towns had the option to go to 25% but the Planning Board kept it at 15%.
Assistant Solicitor Teitz discussed adaptive reuse, a whole separate bill, which allows for commercial industrial structures, including schools, churches, factories, etc. and they can now be converted to residential use and they do not have to get rezoned but there are restrictions on their density and limited to the building envelope. They can add things like handicap accessible, HVAC, elevators, but can’t add to the existing building and can be used for residential or mixed use but they still have to have at least 50% residential. This will be helpful if schools are abandoned and can be repurposed relatively easily and all must comply with building and fire code.
Assistant Town Solicitor reiterated by saying that we will need to review in the future and most likely there will be future changes with this ordinance. He said that the Planning/Zoning Assistant will be working on a citizens guide to help explain this to the public. He said that we will be embarking on a full rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan in 2024 as well as another piece of new legislation requiring that our zoning must come into compliance with our comprehensive plan within 18 months and there must be consistency between them.
Discussion ensued regarding significant language and/or measures that are found in special uses, modifications (15-25%) and inclusionary zoning was discussed by the Assistant Town Solicitor.
Planning Director Crean stated that because we have inclusionary zoning on the books, we are actually going to revisit that after January 1, 2024, because we are already are in compliance with the requirements.
Councilwoman Berard commented that she hopes to continue the discussion on inclusionary zoning (a helpful tool to further housing) with a bigger conversation. She hopes it will be addressed through the comprehensive plan. Planning Director Crean stated that Libra Planners who thrive on housing and has been provided to us as technical consultants will be leading the conversation on inclusionary zoning after the new year.
Councilwoman Berard was at the Planning Board. She said that she brought up the definition of a golf course and removed the additional language that was protective of the uses at Rhode Island Country Club and questioned if the Planning Board discussed it further.
Planning Director Crean stated they looked at the definition of golf course and determined that at this time, if we were to remove the special use permit status, it would render the Rhode Island Country Club non-conforming, and there was concern about doing that at this time. And the other discussion was that in terms of golf courses, a new proposal for a golf course coming to Barrington with our limited land resources is unlikely and therefore, they were not overly concerned about having a revised definition at this time. She said that the board agreed to leave the language the way it was.
President Kustell closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Councilman Cloutier and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to adopt Ordinance #2023-12, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 185 – Zoning, revised to incorporate the Planning Board’s final recommended amendments from November 27, 2023. The motion passed in favor 4-0-0-1, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, no recusals and one abstention, Vice President Humm (absent for the vote).
AGENDA ITEM #15 DISCUSS AND ACT ON RESOLUTIONS
Resolution: Chapter A225 – Adding Zoning Modification Application Fees
TM Comment: The Resolution would establish fees ($250 residential, $300 commercial) for a new zoning modification application process required under State law and included in the proposed amendments to Section 185-40 of the Zoning Ordinance, per Ordinance 2023-12. This process enables a property owner to apply to the Building Official/Zoning Enforcement Officer for a dimensional modification of up to 15 percent. The process requires the Town to notify abutters about pending modification requests of more than five percent. The Building Official can approve requests of up to five percent without notice to abutters. For more information, please see the memorandum describing the Zoning Ordinance amendments (Agenda Item 15, Ordinance 2023-12).
President Kustell asked if anyone from the Town Council wished to comment. No one wished to speak.
President Kustell asked if anyone from the public wished to comment. No one requested to speak.
Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to approve the Resolution Amending Chapter A225 adding Zoning Modification application fees. The motion passed in favor 4-0-0-1, President Kustell, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, no recusals and one abstention, Vice President Humm (absent for the vote).
AGENDA ITEM # 16 DISCUSS AND ACT: BID(S):
BAY Team:
Barrington Municipal Coordinator
TM Comment: The BAY Team requests Council approval to enter into a contract with Elizabeth Lanik of Barrington to fill the part-time position of Barrington Municipal Coordinator, in the amount of up to $35,750, for the grant period of December 2023 through September 2024. This position is 100% funded under a Rhode Island Prevention Task Force grant funded by the Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals.
Regional BAY Team Director Denise Alves was present for the discussion regarding contracting with Elizabeth Lanik to serve as the part-time Barrington Municipal Coordinator. Director Alves stated that this position is entirely grant funded and no funds come from the Town of Barrington. She commented that this position will be completely Barrington focused on work in substance and abuse prevention and mental health.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Janine Wolf, 5 Atlantic Crossing, stated that she looked into this on the task force website. She said that it was specifically as the Barrington Municipal Coordinator. She said it's a little bit confusing regarding the description. She said that it turns out, although it's under the subheading of substance abuse, this role is really an equity role and to deal with social issues, from an equity standpoint, ch she understood it to mean sort of from a racial perspective to combat the things that eventually could lead to substance abuse. She said to the degree that she doesn’t see that we have a lot of that in Barrington, I'd be interested in seeing maybe a report from what this role has done in the past year or two, because I'm trying to make sense, what the role defines versus actually being a substance abuse role in the Town of Barrington. She said that she would like access to some resources about what that role has actually done in the past. Or maybe that's something that's available that she can be directed to.
Director Alves said she could certainly give anybody any information on what the role is. But every community in the State of Rhode Island is mandated to have this role. She said that we are charged with overseeing substance abuse, prevention, from birth to death. She said that we work with elderly programs. She said that we just finished a toddler program. She said that she worked at the high schools, at the middle schools, worked at every age as well as giving services that provide mental health protection in our community. Director Alves said this is the same thing that anybody does in any other community in the Town of Barrington and in the State of Rhode Island in this position.
Motion by Councilman Cloutier and seconded by Councilwoman Berard to approve the BAY Team’s request to contract with Elizabeth Lanik of Barrington to fill the part-time position of Barrington Municipal Coordinator, in the amount of up to $35,750, for the grant period of December 2023 through September 2024. The motion passed in favor 4-0-0-1, President Kustell, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, no recusals and one abstention, Vice President Humm (absent for the vote).
AGENDA ITEM #17: DISCUSS AND ACT: 25 WATSON AVENUE CARMELITE MONASTERY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TM Comment: On September 11, 2023, the Council passed a motion referring “sketches by Union Studio of development at 25 Watson Avenue illustrating between 10-14 cottage units and five single-family lots and request that the Planning Board significantly increase the buffer along the entire north side of the property and that the Planning Board decrease the total number of units but increase the number of affordable units and that the minimum 20% LMI ratio be maintained.” The motion passed in favor 4-0-0-1. The Council also authorized up to $10,000 for professional consultant services to complete additional tasks related to design and engineering tasks required to further refine the conceptual plan.
On October 3, 2023, the Planning Board reviewed the sketches, which depicted a slight change to the original concept supported by the Board: A reduction of one house lot, and a larger pocket neighborhood lot with up to 14 units rather than up to 12 units. The Board passed a motion recommending retaining the six single-family lots and up to 12 cottages in a pocket neighborhood, but with all the affordable housing units (five minimum) included in the pocket neighborhood.
The Planning Board approved a motion “to recommend the Planning Board plan with no restrictions on the 6 single-family lots, silent on the restrictions on the large parcel with 10-12 pocket-neighborhood cottage units, at least 25 percent of the total 16-18 units be affordable with all the affordable units in the pocket neighborhood, increase the buffer zone on the northern side, and remove the pedestrian path originally proposed.” Motion carried 5-1, with Member Simms opposed.
The Town has been working with Union Studio and on-call engineer Pare Corp. to utilize the approved funding to provide a site plan concept consistent with the Planning Board motion, to include additional details such as parking layout, buffers, building footprints, walkways, example building floorplans, a stormwater management concept, and conceptual sewer line connections.
The next step, requiring Council approval, is authorization to issue a Request for Proposals for development of the Pocket Neighborhood.
I’ve attached a draft timeline, and draft Developer Requirements and Guidelines, which were prepared by the Town with Solicitor input. An initial draft of an RFP, including the draft Requirements and Guidelines, will be prepared for review by the administrative committee if the Council votes to proceed with the development of the RFP.
Motion 1: To authorize the Town to develop a Request for Proposals for development of the Pocket Neighborhood at the former Carmelite Monastery property, consistent with the motion adopted by the Planning Board on October 3, 2023.
Motion 2: To authorize the Town to engage a real estate development consultant, at a cost not to exceed $10,000, to assist with the development of the RFP, review of proposals, and the drafting of a development agreement.
Note: If Motion 1 passes, I will be forming an administrative committee to develop the draft RFP and the final conceptual plan sketches for presentation to the Council at the January 8th meeting. It would be helpful to have up to two Council members participating on the committee. I intend to also invite one member from several boards including the Planning Board, Technical Review Committee, Housing Board, and Resilience and Energy Committee. I would anticipate one meeting in mid-December and another the week prior to the January 8th Town Council meeting.
President Kustell stated that we are now at the point where we can evaluate the issuance of a Request for Proposal regarding the property located at 25 Watson Avenue – Carmelite Monastery. He said at this evening’s meeting we are considering whether or not we would direct the Town Manager to start working on an RFP which the Planning Board passed a motion on October 3, 2023 and to work consistent with that motion.
President Kustell said that the Town Manager has provided a “Developer Requirements and Timeline” in this evening’s packet (see Clerkbase).
President Kustell said that he has one issue with the Planning Board’s action, we have talked about senior housing with some affordable units as well as open space at this property location. He said that he understands that there may be some enhancement to the value of the property if you have an age restriction. He said in his view, the neighbors in the area were promised age restriction. He said as a public as a whole, we talked about this being 55 Plus from the beginning. He said that he would rather give everyone the assurance that that would be a guaranteed part of the proposal. He said that the only quibble he had with the Planning Board’s action was that they removed that proposal. He said that he applauded the fact they included the North barrier that was something that was added late and they made a lot of real positive moves along the way. But he said, with regard to the age restriction he thinks it should be a formal age restriction. He said with regard to the cottages he thinks it should remain something that is really not only geared towards seniors but it is a 55 plus development in that portion.
Town Manager Hervey stated that he has provided initial development requirements and guidelines to jumpstart this process for the RFP development. He said you can see that the timeline does mention the age restriction as one of the requirements and how it was reflective of a past action by the Council – it is already contained in the draft as presented tonight.
President Kustell said that he had heard that some people had the impression the removal of the age restriction was suggested by the Town Manager and that was not the case.
Town Manager Hervey said it was just the opposite. He said that the Planning Board made their original recommendation to not include the age restriction. He said that he pointed out that the Council endorsed the age restriction at a previous meeting, and it has been settled. He said that the Planning Board was neutral in their motion about age restriction.
Councilwoman Berard said that she agreed with the 55 plus. She said that she sees the value of the argument that the Planning Board had to include some mixed age homes in that neighborhood. But she agreed that 55 plus should stick. She commented that she thinks that we could have some better movement on the 25% affordability. She agreed the affordability should sit in the pocket neighborhood and she is hoping that number can be higher. She said that she is curious as to suggested motions are looking for an RFP related to the pocket neighborhood and not necessarily the individual lots first, is there a reason that's the case?
Town Manager Hervey said there is a subdivision plan for the lots that will be brought forward with this RFP. He said that there is an RFP for the pocket neighborhood, which is like a land development project on one lot, and then the subdivision would happen for the remainder of the lot to include that open space lot and six separate single-family lots.
Councilwoman Berard said that she just wanted to clarify that there were six separate lots. She asked if he has some design standards for the single-family development.
Town Manager Hervey stated that they are working on the single-family piece. He said that this is for the pocket neighborhood itself because that does require an RFP to go out. He said that he was looking at some standards just for the individual house lots that could be considered by the Council. He said that those lots could be sold individually on the market after authorized at the Financial Town Meeting.
Councilwoman Berard asked if it needs to be in that order. She asked can we seek to move those lots and push them out quicker or do we have to wait for the Financial Town Meeting to subdivide and sell those lots separately.
Town Manager Hervey said that he thinks part of the challenge is that several of the lots are occupied by the building itself and we need the authorization to remove the building. He said he thinks we don't want surprises by persons considering buying one of the single family lots like this is the approved plan. He said that this was approved by the Council, and this is what is getting built on the pocket neighborhood.
Councilwoman Berard questioned the Brownfields Assessment Application.
Town Manager Hervey said that we are working to see if there's funding available for that. He said that we have engaged the firm that did the initial scoping and analysis of the amount of asbestos in that building to come up with the application for a more thorough hazardous materials assessment. He said that will qualify us to apply for the larger Brownfield Remediation Grant that could help offset the cost of demolition, which is the big cost of the remediation.
Councilwoman Berard said in this particular plan, in the building itself, it does not fall on one of the proposed subdivided lots, it crosses over a few of them and would we have to consider remediating the asbestos and removing the building prior to subdividing and selling the lots.
Town Manager Hervey said that he thinks the pocket neighborhood itself, in conjunction with the construction and along with the demolition, because we would need to make a commitment to remove that building because we do not want that building just to sit there. He said that we could just leave it there if we had to, but he said if the demolition of the building is not approved, and not removed at the next Financial Town Meeting, we could still build a pocket neighborhood adjacent to it; it's just not the ideal situation, obviously. He said that it is about three lots of the single-family lots that would be affected by the building itself.
Councilwoman Berard said that she wanted to reiterate that she thinks the pocket neighborhood could have a higher percentage of affordable units. She said that the plan was to create an age restricted, affordable place to live. She said that she thinks the single-family lots really detract from that, although she said that she understands the financial reason. She is hoping we would consider a higher percentage of affordability within the pocket neighborhood itself. She said that is her sticking point.
Councilwoman Conway said that this is incredibly premature to discuss an RFP. She said one of her reasons most specifically, is right now, there is another meeting taking place with the School Committee where they're talking about decommissioning a school, there will be a property potentially available after the voters voted to pass a $250 million bond. She said another property that could be used for many of the things that we're talking about right now, including, we just discussed adaptive reuse of a public or commercial property that can be used for housing. She said that she thinks the idea when we look at what we initially sought out to do, or what she believes the intention of purchasing this property, was to make sure that the Town had control of the property. That it would not fall directly into developers’ hands and that it would not be overbuilt. She said what we have done is we have now created a pocket neighborhood, single family homes, it's still a math problem, we still don't have the right level of senior housing, affordable housing, senior affordable housing, and we are selling off properties to single family homes, but the wish was that the Town would maintain control. She said in addition, the voters of the Town have not authorized us to take the building down. She said that we are asking to spend money to develop an RFP, asking for proposals from developers using factors that are currently unavailable, and you are unable to remove that property without the voters.
Councilwoman Conway said that another piece of this is that the current plan does not necessarily reflect the intention of the ad hoc committee. In terms of when the ad hoc committee came to the FTM. She said prior to the vote where they decided to save the building. She said that the committee was clear that they wanted to retain the footprint if the building was taken down then the building would return. She said that we are hearing this with the adaptive reuse argument that you cannot build onto a building but you can retain the building. She said that the intention of the ad hoc committee was to maintain that footprint and this is overbuilt. She said that we also haven't done our due diligence. She said that she is shaking her head when she hears that we are going to look into funding available for hazardous material remediation when we asked to have research done for grants on preserving the open space. She said if we lose this space, we don't get it back, you build up, it's gone. She said that we have other options, we have Zion, we have potentially another property based on the school removal that's going to be available to us. She said to go forward with an RFP right now, we need a comprehensive plan, we need to look at the holistic approach for the Town, we need an affordable housing plan, we need a senior housing plan, we need a climate plan and not necessarily dealing with each property and talking about the specifics of each property. She suggested that we wait until the FTM and we can put it on the ballot whether or not the building should be removed with the intention, potentially, of this Planning Board plan going forward, but we need to put it back to the voters to say does the building come down? Or does the building stay up? She expressed that we have so many unknowns at this point. She said that she thinks to assume that the voters will suggest we take down the building and approve that we take down the building is presumptuous and it jumps through a number of gates that we are not ready to go through yet. Because we still don't know what's happening with Zion, we still don't know what's going to happen with the schools, which building will be removed and we still don't know what other options are out there for funding for open space. She suggested that we need to table this until we have more information, and she sees no reason to rush forward. She said that she knows that there's a holding cost. But she said that she thinks the opportunity cost is going to be much more significant when we turn around and we have lost a big piece of open space in Town without looking at all of the different elements. She believes that others don't agree with her, but she said she had to say her piece because once that land is developed, it's developed.
Assistant Town Solicitor Teitz said that he has been working closely with the Town Manager on this, and the RFP. He said that he thinks the problem is actually the opposite, needing to move forward quickly, because the Financial Town Meeting will be here, before we realize it. He said the idea of going to the Financial Town Meeting without a plan, we have been there and done that, and the voters both throughout the town and the neighborhood legitimately rejected that saying, “you're not telling us what you want to do with it, you're asking for a blank check.” He said that is why the Town really needs to have a plan. He said that he understands that some of the residents around it may not want it but we need to have a specific plan that we can say to them, here is how it will be developed. He said if you allow us to tear down the building, we will stick to this plan. He said that he thinks that is the only thing that can ever have a chance of passing at the FTM. Or, he said that we are going to be stuck with this building forever. He said unfortunately, the problem with its adaptive reuse is the specific structure of this building with the concrete walls and the asbestos integral to the internal materials of the building.
Councilwoman Conway said she is not suggesting that there's adaptive reuse of this building. Her suggestion is that we have potentially have another building within Town that has a lot more space to it and that it could be classified for adaptive reuse, this building needs to be removed to do anything with the property. She said that at this point we do not have the approval to remove the building. In fact, she said that we have had such a narrow margin that she has a hard time believing that we can push forward with something that's so different from what the ad hoc committee suggested, which was a representative group and was across town and across town committees and was not allowed to respond after the restriction of maintaining the building. There was no reconvening of the ad hoc committee to discuss what the next steps should be. She said instead, it went directly to Planning to identify what the plan is. I understand the push because of the Financial Town Meeting coming up soon, and she agreed it'll be here before we know it, but she does not think that you can ask for us to go out to an RFP, with circumstances that do not yet exist in the same way that we did not go back to the ad hoc committee when the circumstances were changed, and then requested their input on what should happen next.
Assistant Town Solicitor Teitz said, respectfully, he thinks that will get you into a Catch 22 loop of never getting anywhere. He said, based on my years of experience representing several towns and acquiring open space property, it is almost impossible to get money for acquiring open space, once you've already bought it. He said that there is a specific program with the DEM if you actually identified it beforehand, where they might let you close beforehand and give you the money afterwards. But there is no program that he knows of, with once the Town has bought it that any one state or federal or private entity is going to provide the funds to allow that open space use once the Town has already done it. He said that they will say, why should we spend the money once the Town has done it.. He said that he supports the Managers program, you are going to have it back, you are going to see the RFP, you are going to see the proposals. He said if the council doesn't like the proposals, then at that point, you can say, okay, we don't want to do it, we want to go in a different direction. But if we don't have a real plan to say that we will be bound, then the voters will not trust the Town at that Financial Town Meeting without a real plan and he said that he can't blame them.
Councilwoman Berard asked about adaptive reuse for the schools and that it does not automatically turn into a potential housing use.
Assistant Town Solicitor Teitz said that they are owned by the Town and the Town has the right to decide what to do with them. He said but first a developer has to own it to be able to do it. But if the Town owns it we control it as owner. He said that there is a state law that was actually passed the year before, which requires the Department of Education to work with the Department of Housing, to identify the school but he said that he believes that they have to be designated by the community as surplus.
Discussion ensued that there are a lot of municipal potential uses for property, field space or indoor recreational space.
Councilwoman Berard said that the worst thing a government can do is continue to push the ball down the road and do nothing. She said while the ad hoc committee did not formally receive the opportunity to reply, that there have been many, many instances in both the Planning Board and special meetings and meetings with Town Council, that this topic has been rehashed over and over and over. She agreed with Solicitor Teitz that not having any idea is the worst thing that we can do, even if that idea is rejected, it's been very painstakingly hashed out. She said the numbers have gone from in the 30s to 16 to 18 units, which she thinks is in reply to what the neighbors have discussed.
Councilwoman Berard said certainly the Planning Board has taken additional efforts to look at what sidewalks would look like and the increase at the northern buffer. She said that this is a group of a few residents, but they are the neighbors. She said we would be really remiss if we continue to push this down the road in the hopes that there's some grant money for it to be open space. She said that she does not think that was ever the reason that it was purchased. She said this has been parsed down in a way that it allows for some recoupment financially, having single house lots facing some other larger single house lots and creating a pocket neighbor which may provide some affordability for senior housing. She reiterated that without a plan or data, it's not going to move forward, it's going to continue to be pushed down the line, in my opinion.
Councilwoman Conway said that she wanted to respond quickly to the adaptive reuse and Zion. She said rather than focus specifically on what we need to do with this property to just get something done, which she said she thinks is a challenge with government to push down a plan versus to actually consider the citizen input and engagement that's been provided. She stated, yes, she thinks this plan has adjusted significantly. But again, the intention was to have town control and it does not necessarily feel as though it has town control at this point. She said in terms of design, and the potential removal of Hampden Meadows or Sowams, the idea is just that they are available, if we're going to solve for affordability, or we are going to solve for senior housing, we need to look at those as a comprehensive and holistic way we can't look at the town and say, there's this piece of property and there is that piece of property, we need to have a broad view of what the goals are that we are trying to accomplish. She continued by saying if we are trying to accomplish more senior housing or more housing affordability within town, then we need to look at the potential options of broadly and dramatically increasing our affordable housing. If we were to provide or if Zion is required to provide more senior affordable housing, the numbers could change dramatically between 12 units or 16 units. She said that it is a broad scope that we need to look at all of the different options and she thinks that we are being too short sighted and she said that we are looking for action, because we want to close this page. She said that she understands that it is probably fruitless but she thinks we need to consider the fact that we have a few people who show up. But we also have a lot of people who don't want that property gone, don't want the open space gone. She said that we had a private investor who was willing to invest to purchase back land from the Town, we didn't look into it, we have a responsibility to do our due diligence, we have a responsibility to the rest of the community. She said she does not think that holding back another six months or another year would be the end of our downfall. She said she does not think it's a Catch 22 and she said that she resents being pushed to action, when there have been a lot of unknowns and a lot of questions. She said she understands there is an agenda and there's a purpose and people want to see results but she thinks there are tremendous mistakes that happen when people are trying to move too fast, because they're just trying to get things done.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Paige Barber, 46 Clark Road, said that she has one point, she was thinking that the main reasons that the demolition vote didn't go through before the last FTM was that the huge uncertainty about the development and this idea that you're going to give sort of a blank check to do anything. But the other big thing that she remembered and that really concerned a lot of us was the sort of safety over the demolition and how it would be done. She continued to comment on how safe our neighborhood would be. She said this before, and she said that she thinks it would be really great, in addition to fleshing out kind of exactly what the property might look like, that if you want a successful vote to demolish the property that we need to explore and publicly share all aspects of safely demolishing the building. She said that you come into that FTM whether it's before or at a public hearing, or open meeting and explain to people how we can do it. She said she thinks that really would tip the scales in terms of voting for the demolition. She said however the property will be used whether open space or housing she thinks that's really something that you need to address or people are going to still be very, very skittish about the demolition.
Amy Nann, 20 Clark Road, said that she wanted to thank those of you who have come out to hear the concerns of some of the residents, Braxton, Carl, and Annelisa. She echoed the concerns that Councilwoman Conway brought up. Ms. Nann said that Councilwoman Conway discussed the sentiments of many of us in the surrounding community and it is not just a handful of people. She said that we have presented letters to you with over 100 signatures, during the last year. She said these are concerns that a lot of us share and she said that we are not at the original intent for purchasing the property but it is good to hear that there is some movement on protecting the needs of seniors, but not moving the needle much on affordable housing or open space. She said we have not done our due diligence on even the cost of the environmental assessments. She said that this may help those to understand what the environmental and public health implications are of changing the property.
She suggested breaking this up into three different property developments is going to look like a big mess, it's going to be disjointed, better urban planning would be to do that all together and to think more thoughtfully about that, and also how not to segregate people of lower socio-economic status geographically in the way that has been proposed, that really flies in the face of what is now considered to be best practices in urban planning. We don't want to segregate people by income in our community, they are not the values that we uphold.
She said that all of these things suggests that we need a more comprehensive approach that looks at this by looking back at our original goals. She said that we want to make sure that our voices are heard when these plans are put forth.
Elizabeth Grieser, 42 Watson Avenue, said she thinks there is a difference of opinion as to the intent of the original purchase. She said she thinks people are feeling lost or unheard, it is not what was told at the initial purchase. She said that it was always said that the Town would control it. She said that there was not any kind of due diligence on those grants. She said she knows that they did a lot of work on the grant list of possibilities, but it never got anywhere. She offered a proposal for a compromise that maybe one or two of the lots that are currently single family be added to the open space portion to make it a little more of an open space statement area. She said that she would like to say that these last few years have been stressful living across the street and not knowing what is going on. She said that this plan seems to be somewhat of a compromise in that it is low density and has some open space but she was just wondering if we could make it a little bit more balanced for those people who were hoping to have that green area.
Debra Nyser, 30 Adelaide Avenue said she agrees with the plan and that we have worked very hard with that plan from where it first started. She discussed that we need the tax dollars and she said she understands that we need the housing. She said what she hasn’t heard is about the people that live here now, our seniors and what is being done for them. She said that she is a senior and we cannot keep having our taxes keep going up. But yet she said she hears that we are going to bend over for people that do not even live here. She said she does know that we need the revenue. She said that we are going to have an election coming up and the possibility of three (3) open seats, are we going to go through this all over again. She said that she is very conflicted.
Mary Grenier, 10 Watson Avenue, said that she is conflicted too. She is concerned with the pocket neighborhood – cottage court neighborhood and everyone else is going to have a nice, beautiful lot and this little neighborhood is going to be affordable. She said that she understands that the Planning Board gave a lot of guidance but it can’t look different than the other homes surrounding it. She suggested that it be more interspersed than to have it all jammed together into cottages in one place. She said that it sounds like there will be parking lots in their backyards with cottages having the parking behind them. She said she would like to see fewer houses in that cul de sac.
Tom Rimoshytus, 1 Howard Street, said that you have a proposal in front of you move forward with it. He said that three years is long enough. He said that you have the proposal put it to a vote. If you don't like it. You can vote no. If you do like it, you can vote yes, we can move forward. He commented that you can do a comprehensive plan and you can adjust as you are going along or not even use it. He said that fields have been in the comprehensive plan for 20 years and we don't have any more fields. He said so it's time to get off the pot move forward and vote on this tonight, and let's get this done. He said that this is something that we should not have been involved to begin with and let's get going. If not, put it up and sell it and let the next person worry about it. We shouldn't be in the housing development business.
David Butera, 275 Nayatt Road, said, in his opinion, that most of the neighbors are comfortable with the plan. He said that he thinks what bothers them is the cluster development. He said that the Town would have a higher return if you sold them. He suggested to select 2-3 local architects and you could control the design of each of the homes and you don’t end up with three Garrisons in a row. He said that he thinks it would benefit the community.
President Kustell closed public comment.
Motion (1) by President Kustell and seconded by Vice President Humm to authorize the Town to develop a Request for Proposals for development of the Pocket Neighborhood at the former Carmelite Monastery property, consistent with the motion adopted by the Planning Board on October 3, 2023, with the caveat that the parcel with 10-12 cottage units should be formally age restricted to 55 plus. The motion passed 4-1-0-0, in favor, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard and Councilman Cloutier, one (1) opposed, Councilwoman Conway, no recusals and no abstentions.
President Kustell asked if any council members would like to discuss the second motion that is outlined in this evening’s packet.
Councilman Cloutier asked if we engage a real estate development consultant then we don't need to do what he believes that is in the Town Manager's memo which discusses an Administrative Committee to develop the draft? He asked we would have the real estate development consultant do that instead of the Administrative Committee?
Town Manager Hervey stated that the idea would be that the professional would work with the Administrative Committee. He said that we would need to see the expertise for the financial piece and perform a review with associated items.
Councilwoman Berard asked if it is premature for the development agreement.
Town Manager Hervey said that this would be the first phase, it would not take that much money to get to the January meeting, as it would be just doing a review and helping to provide the draft for the Council's approval in January. He said that the rest of that scope would be asked if the Council approves the issuance of the RFP in January, that you would need this person to help us with, for example, in interviewing developers reviewing and evaluating each proposal, including the financials especially, and all those things. He said that we don't have that capacity in-house. He said that we would need that professional, for most of this (draft) and most of this work would be after, if the council approves issuing an RFP in January.
Councilwoman Berard asked for further clarification, would the engagement include all of these additional things because it would likely be at the FTM, in the middle of next year? She said that this is quite a lengthy engagement, or it is just authorizing you to engage someone different, possibly for the other aspects.
Town Manager Hervey said this person would do all of those tasks and it would be consistent with the timeline that was provided this evening in your packet.
Motion (2) by Councilwoman Berard and seconded by Vice President Humm to authorize the Town to engage a real estate development consultant, at a cost not to exceed $10,000, to assist with the development of the RFP, review of proposals, and the drafting of a development agreement. The motion passed 4-1-0-0, in favor, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard and Councilman Cloutier, one (1) opposed, Councilwoman Conway, no recusals and no abstentions.
Town Manager Hervey stated to President Kustell that there is a third piece, if Council would like to have participation in the Administrative Council and if so, they should name the two members this evening. These meetings would occur between now and the January meeting, one in December and then another one the week before the Council meeting in January.
Councilman Cloutier said that it makes sense since we both (President Kustell and Councilman Cloutier) have been engaged with neighbors. He said it also makes sense to continue for one more month of work for you, President Kustell and myself.
Councilwoman Conway said that she is a little taken aback by the fact that we are going to create an Administrative Committee that is literally almost the same as the ad hoc committee, is it not? She said that we have representatives from Technical Review, Planning Board, Housing Board, Resilience and Energy. She said that we are only missing Open Space and EDC (Economic Development Committee).
Town Manager said that this was just a means to get this draft with specific expertise.
Councilwoman Conway asked if you have selected the members from each of those committees?
Town Manager Hervey stated that he has not done anything with those committees. He said that we are not designing open space for example and he said that he didn’t think it was relevant at this time.
Councilwoman Conway said but there is open space included in the plan and you are talking specifically about the pocket.
Assistant Town Solicitor stated that it is optional on the part of the Council if you do not want to participate and just leave it to the Manager.
President Kustell said with the willingness of Councilman Cloutier and by the Manager’s request, that he is willing to do whatever is the product of that process and it would be reviewed by the entire council at the next meeting.
Councilwoman Conway said but the meetings are not public.
Town Manager Hervey said that the meetings are not public but the recommendation would be presented in public.
Councilwoman Conway said but the input would not be public.
Assistant Town Solicitor Teitz stated that these meetings are not publicized, it is not a public meeting, it is an internal committee of the Manager.
Councilwoman Conway stated that she does not support it.
Discussion ensued regarding that these meetings would be that of a months’ time, to formalize language for an RFP, based on what has been provided and that the draft RFP and the final conceptual plan sketch would be part of the package with the RFP is technical in nature in which the draft has been provided to the public along with the initial draft requirements and guidelines.
Councilwoman Berard said just to clarify we have moved forward with the Planning Board plan to create an RFP and the change is minimal. She said that as far as she is concerned it is just technical, and putting finer details to the plans to make sure everything is spatially correct to meet certain requirements, such as parking requirements, buffers and things of that nature. She said that you are not having a secret meeting with a couple of the members to create a different plan other than what we have just voted on. She said that these are technical specifics that go out in a tyrannical request. She said that it just seems to me that it is being painted very differently by some of your comments (Councilwoman Conway) which concern me because this is not an issue about it being public or not but an administrative task.
Councilwoman Conway said that her concern is that if we are coming up with final conceptual plans and sketches that continue to change and shift, we have people who are supporting the plan, but are not completely sure how many units we have and wondering if we are going to take away a couple. She said if we are moving forward with exactly the plan as it was drafted and it is literally just moving it six inches or eight inches in this area well then, that is fine. She said that she is just asking that it would be open to the public. She asked if there is an option to have public attendance and asked, why not? She said we have been involved in the ad hoc with these guys and have been involved in communicating with the neighborhood. She said we have all in some ways had some open meeting conversation and she said that it would make sense to have it public, at least have it as a Zoom meeting and be live streamed. She said she doesn’t see any reason not to do that.
Discussion ensued regarding the Town Manager will form an administrative committee, which is one of a technical process (2 members of the Council, and one member from each of several boards including Planning Board, Technical Review Committee, Housing Board, and Resilience and Energy Committee), with the end result to develop the draft RFP, and the final conceptual plan/sketches for presentation to the Council at the January 8th regular meeting and shared to the public.
Motion (3) by President Kustell and seconded by Vice President Humm to appoint Councilman Cloutier and myself, President Kustell, to the Commission organized by Town Manager Hervey to an Ad hoc meeting of the Town Manager based on the Planning Boards motion (25 Watson Avenue) of October 3, 2023. The motion passed 4-1-0-0, in favor, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard and Councilman Cloutier, one (1) opposed, Councilwoman Conway, no recusals and no abstentions.
AGENDA ITEM #18: DISCUSS AND ACT: RECREATION FIELDS AND FACILITIES (STANDING AGENDA ITEM): FIELDS PRESENTATION WITH ART EDDY - TRAVERSE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.
TM Comment: Art Eddy of Traverse Landscape Architecture will present the latest draft Athletic Fields Condition and Needs Analysis, which focuses on fields at municipal and school sites. Recommendations from the report are based on three components: 1. The process for the registering and management of fields; 2. Short- and long-term field improvement projects; and 3. Field maintenance program.
The Town received the report late on Monday, November 27th. We need more time to review and provide feedback to Traverse for the final document. I’ve noted several areas that require additional detail to help the Town begin to prioritize field improvement projects. I recommend making a motion with any initial requests for the consultant to add to the report, and to forward the draft to the Park and Recreation Commission for input for the Council to consider at the January 8th meeting.
Proposed Motion 1: To refer the draft Athletic Fields Condition and Needs Analysis to the Park and Recreation Commission to provide comments for the Council to consider at the January 8th meeting.
Proposed Motion 2: To request Traverse to address the following in the final report:
(list) _______________
___________________
___________________
Arthur Eddy of Traverse Landscape Architects was present to discuss the draft report with proposed recommendations of the Fields in Barrington. He discussed key highlights:
Scheduling System – An inadequate registration system leading to frustration among the various participants. This system allows for groups to self-manage. This makes it difficult from a maintenance standpoint. It is difficult for DPW to be in charge of many things from sewers to roads, to trees etc. The need is for an additional person for scheduling, with more dedicated crew with a dedicated budget line in order to bring the fields back with better quality.
Field Usage: The fields in town are over-used with recreational use, and the hours from the schools. Most of the fields are in need of repair, renovations or replacement. This needs to be rectified with an increase in spaces that can sustain more use and allow for resting and the repairs for long-term planning of maintenance of the fields. There is overlap on fields (softball and soccer – field hockey and baseball etc.). The opinion is that a synthetic field is needed because there is lack of space, not enough room to build additional fields and synthetic fields will give you that opportunity.
Land Limitations - Presently, the major use areas are Chianese Field, Middle School, St. Andrews Farm and the High School. A point of concern is that fields are built over a landfill and/or they are environmentally protected.
Mr. Eddy stated that it is of the opinion that this created another level of concern as we get into permitting regulations and stormwater regulations, especially in the lower fields which is getting less use and could use an overhaul. His opinion is that the Middle School has a good potential but would need a better irrigation system and said that he understands it is relatively a newer investment. He said with that said he suggested Victory Field be considered as a location but there are some potential environmental concerns due to a flood zone. But he said he believes that with additional impacts and consent assessments it can happen. He said we have done this in other locations who have similar zones. He said the main goal is to get to a point where a field or two is taken offline every year, so that you are not constantly rotating through fields so that they can be rehabilitated, as well as bring back the quality of those fields.
Mr. Eddy discussed the possibility of:
Increased Participation by Town Youth – An assessment of the current demographics of the town versus the current enrollment in the recreational athletic program indicate close to 30% ages 5-18 (22% of the population). (Data only included town leagues and no other leagues outside of the town.).
Mr. Eddy stated that the school department discussed additional school club programs that they would like to offer.
Councilwoman Berard questioned if what was proposed on the St. Andrew’s location can actually been done on that property.
Town Manager Hervey stated that we need to confirm before the final recommendations regarding a synthetic (field) would be permitted under the easement, lighting is not permitted and he believes a structure of a restroom would be permitted and believes that it is consistent, in his view, that it would be consistent with the donation of that property and the easement.
Councilwoman Berard questioned additional staff with the Department of Public Works (DPW) especially since this plan needs to have regular scheduled maintenance. She questioned outsourcing for more staff.
Mr. Eddy said that there are things that should be outsourced but if we have a major overhaul with maintenance then there should be 2-3 people on a regular basis for the size and scale of what you have.
Councilwoman Berard said going through the report that Barrington fields received D’s and F’s and commented on the many responsibilities the members of the DPW staff are tasked in completing (prep fields (33% school fields), improvements to sewer pump stations, remedy drainage issues, supervise outside contractors, plant over 42 trees, shredding events, cutting down trees (currently 349 requests) and over 370 maintenance orders. She said if nothing else this is highlighted at the top level for me, that we need to hire more people for DPW in maintenance, no matter what the decision whether we make it relative to synthetic or otherwise.
Mr. Eddy commented that two components that are really important are, the maintenance staff and to look at the scheduling side because they need to work hand in hand and there is no record-keeping of such and we need to see the importance of keeping records because DPW has a lot of knowledge but currently there is no record of it.
Councilwoman Berard questioned if we had any registration numbers that would help support one sport over another. Mr. Eddy stated that the town is high in baseball and discussed the equity between softball and baseball. He said that the challenge with baseball/softball is they are the most expensive to maintain and harvest because of the clay infield. He said that the conclusion is that we would prefer to have the field in a better condition than have more of them.
Vice President Humm questioned the recommendations made and where we can go with the next steps. He questioned the cost of a software program ($60-$240 a month). Mr. Eddy said that usually the Assistant Parks & Recreation Director manage the program, but it is not a full-time position.
Vice President Humm spoke with Mr. Eddy regarding, Improvements (pg. 64) and asked Mr. Eddy if it is his recommendation because of the two key findings, field usage and land limitations, and if it is the best way to reconcile those two items would be to have a synthetic turf field(s) in Town. Mr. Eddy explained that you should look at the various options, such as in East Providence. They moved forward with a recyclable turf field, wood fiber infill and a recyclable pad. He said that you must look at your field and how you want it to perform/behave. He said some have more maintenance, some less. He said that we would use materials that are organic and recyclable but when you use a pad you shorten the height of the turf.
Vice President Humm questioned the recommendation at the St. Andrews field, following in Councilwoman Berard’s questions, if we cannot have lights that it may not be an option for that field to have a synthetic field because the lights lends itself for more usage.
Discussion ensued with the cost data of Chianese field and the challenge of the landfill component as well as the component of the water quality treatment and the needs to occur in the wellhead protection area.
Mr. Eddy stated that it would be a rough estimate regarding cost because there are components there that need to really be studied and understood to get a firm number. Vice President Humm requested another iteration of the report may include consideration of synthetic turf at the Middle School and the cost of that area. Vice President Humm would like to see cost details that border County Road because of the many sports that play at that these areas (two baseball fields and field hockey) as well as the side field near the library. Vice President Humm stated that the Town was given a report from the Ad hoc Field Committee and that they had recommended to install artificial turf area in that area. He requested Mr. Eddy consider and place that in the report.
Mr. Eddy said that the balance is to build good grass fields and synthetic turf is a mechanism to build good grass fields. He said that it should be looked at as the quality of having additional grass fields. He said that Victory Field can alleviate all the practices off those fields. He said that you can practice on those fields as opposed to just games and that will open up better grass fields. He commented that the library field feels like a really good grass field that just needs to get expanded to be able to rotate because it is certainly an opportunity. He said that certain key areas will actually alleviate a big portion of the problem and Victory (Field) seems to be one of those that would do just that.
Vice President Humm requested to include that area for maintenance or rebuilding or improving that area especially for the new rules associated with field hockey.
Vice President Humm discussed the outfield of the softball field, as well as the soccer field in that location, and the fields located near the tennis courts at the high school, which is another soccer field and requested Mr. Eddy review.
The discussion continued regarding the alternative options (pg. 64) and questions arose defining “stitching” (Premier FIFA Premier fields stitch synthetic turf into the field.) Mr. Eddy said that it is something that may be long-term and evaluated as an opportunity. Vice President Humm requested to specify if it is full or patched so that we have a sense of the cost.
Vice President Humm asked Mr. Eddy, if Hampden Meadows School were to shut down, did he consider the viability of the Hampden Meadows Property? Mr. Eddy stated that they looked at that property and it can be added to the report. Vice President Humm requested that Mr. Eddy include cost information for building a brand-new field at this location.
Councilwoman Berard asked if the ADA recommendations can begin now.
Mr. Eddy said yes, absolutely. He said that one of the first is with the dugouts at the baseball/softball areas. He said that it would have to be asphalt pavement path, at least one side of the field needs access for those in wheelchairs or using crutches.
Discussion ensued regarding another iteration with a presentation at the January meeting.
Councilwoman Berard questioned the improvements at Sherwood Park and if drainage could be improved. Mr. Eddy said it works in conjunction with DPW, that there may need to be a lot of drainage improvement which could be located outside of the field. He said it needs just a little more to push water off that field and it may need horticultural improvements by way of a sand slit drain equipment and it would not shut down the field in those types of instances.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Aaron Aguiar, Barrington Little League, addressed the Spring season, with over 500 participants, all of the fields are utilized but we struggle with scheduling. He said that there is no such thing as practice field, they are game fields. He said that lacrosse uses those fields and we yield those fields on Saturdays. He said coming this spring the school committee approved a middle school softball team but it will be a big challenge and will complicate things further – we will use Primrose for practices. Mr. Aguiar requested to be a part of the discussions.
Tom Rimoshytus, 1 Howard Street, said that he has been a part of this discussion and on the committee for over 20 years. He commented that hybrid, in this instance, would cost twice as much money from what we looked at before. He discussed the concerns with the NFL and how they are pulling their fields back to grass. He asked them to consider doing away with the baseball fields at Chianese and placing it back at Haines Park and then make them multi-use fields and free up Chianese for a synthetic field. He mentioned that pickleball is popular but we are trying to make everything equal and trying to have everyone with the same playing time. It also means that the grandstand will need to be ADA required and add restrooms.
Josh Glass questioned why synthetic fields can’t be placed at Chianese Field. Mr. Eddy stated that there would need to be a lot more work on drainage issues because of the well-head protection designation.
President Kustell closed public comment.
Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of an impact with a 100-year flood and how the drainage would need to be improved by moving the water in a different direction.
Councilwoman Berard asked if Mr. Eddy has seen other towns have a jurisdictional dynamic with school versus town. Mr. Eddy said every day with a cross balance between what the school runs and what the town runs by way of maintenance and all the components that just goes with the territory.
Vice President Humm recapped important aspects that he would like to see in the final report from Mr. Eddy such as:
Chianese Field – both lower and middle with costs, estimates and the details behind them and an estimate with more technical scientific details of the well-head protection and building on the landfill. A recommendation regarding a hybrid approach.
For any field, but not just a maintenance program, but improving the fields from their current stat and/or synthetic turf to obtain a balance for each of the locations.
Barrington Middle School – because there is such a large landmass with adequate parking, so many sports, such as basketball, pickleball and being such a highly visible area, he requested that he would like to see more recommendations within the report (costs, estimates etc.)
Barrington High School – additional information such as costs and estimates with regard to Victory Field; recommendations on the existing site with a replacement/change/improve the track and make it a regulation size for high school soccer or regulation size for girl’s lacrosse for the high school level, which currently the field is not; and to include the cost of lights (with any of the fields mentioned throughout the discussion) to get the maximum of usage including St. Andrews. VP Humm reiterated that the recommendations should include the fields along County Road (field hockey) and to expand it near the library, current baseball area, fields adjacent of the main parking lot (near tennis courts) with additional information with respect to the hybrid recommendations and costs in terms of stitching/full hybrid and to review the cost with lights.
Hampden Meadows – recommendations regarding a new field. VP Humm mentioned that his personal opinion natural grass because he envisions a park-like area with a playground and other outdoor areas for other recreational purposes which leads into trails.
Councilwoman Berard commented that she would like to see action steps. She said that this is a very big purchase for the Town. She requested to see the action list include ADA, because it makes sense to do it now even if we do not do all these things but a list of action items is what is needed.
Vice President Humm asked again, “Mr. Eddy is it possible to have these recommendations for January 8th?”
Mr. Eddy said, “no problem.”
Town Manager Hervey stated that, in speaking with Solicitor Teitz, the agreement with St. Andrews Farm is amendable, you can amend that agreement with the Land Trust, the Town Council and St. Andrews School, but all three parties would have to agree to the amendments.
Town Manager Hervey stated that the lights are clearly not allowed in that current agreement as currently written. He said that “synthetic” would be required as an amendment.
Motion 1 by Vice President Humm and seconded by Councilman Cloutier to refer the draft Athletic Fields Condition and Needs Analysis to the Park and Recreation Commission to provide comments for the Council to consider at the January 8th meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0-0, in favor President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, no one recused and there were no abstentions.
Motion 2: by Vice President Humm and seconded by Councilman Cloutier to request Traverse Landscape Architects to address the following in the final report by January 8, 2024, at the next Town Council meeting:
1. Provide details regarding conceptually how the software programs work and how much they would cost, including how they would be staffed and the general time commitment.
2. Provide a dedicated field maintenance crew would look like with respect to number of people on the crew, what they would do, how much it would cost and whether it's recommended to be internal or external.
3. Provide the cost details behind the recommendations for synthetic turf at Victory Field and St Andrews Farm, including lights.
4. Provide details behind a cost estimate for a brand-new field at Victory Field that could accommodate regulation size for all high school sports that use the field, including a new track and lights.
5. Provide cost details regarding synthetic turf field at both middle- and lower- Chianese Field overall, and also to include individual cost details for each of middle- Chianese Field and lower- Chianese Field, and including lights., or, one or the other and to include lights.
6. Provide cost details regarding synthetic turf at the Barrington Middle School fields, including lights.
7. Provide cost details for synthetic turf field at the High School fields, that border County Road, including lights, as recommended by the Barrington Ad Hoc Field Committee in their 2020/2021 report.
8. Provide cost details for synthetic turf field at the High School fields that border the main parking lot, including lights.
9. Provide cost details for synthetic turf field at the high school fields behind the tennis courts, including lights.
10. For all the full or partial hybrid recommendations in the report to specify whether they are estimates for full hybrid fields or for partial hybrid at those fields.
11. Provide cost details to build a potential new natural grass or synthetic turf field at Hampden Meadows School.
12. For all the fields mentioned in this motion and in the report, to include details and costs not only for synthetic turf (with lights), but also for rebuilt or repaired natural grass and hybrid (in full or in part).
13. To include, as part of the report, a recommended action plan that includes a timeline of when all the measures could be implemented, in the event some of the measures could be implemented sooner rather than later.
The motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0-0, in favor President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, no one recused and there were no abstentions.
AGENDA ITEM #19: DISCUSS AND ACT: OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT PROPOSAL PRIORITIZATION.
TM Comment: The RI Department of Environmental Management Outdoor Recreation Grant Program requires communities to rank application proposals, with higher-ranked projects receiving more points than lower ranked ones. The Town is in the process of submitting applications for the development of a skatepark to the north of the Kids Kove Playground behind Town Hall, and the expansion of the Police Cove Park splash pad. (Due date is Wednesday, December 6th.) I have written the Splash Pad application, based on a concept and cost estimate provided by VHB. Park & Recreation Commission Chair Mike Seward is working with the Planning Department to pull together the skatepark (combo BMX bike track) proposal.
The Town Council previously authorized the submittal of both applications but has not ranked them. The Park and Recreation Commission on November 16 voted to recommend ranking the skatepark as the number one priority.
I’m still concerned about losing parking – the above photo of the overflow parking lot where the skateboard park would be installed was taken on Wednesday, 11/29. The lots at TAPIN and the Peck Center for Adult Enrichment were also full, and cars were parked along most of the main driveway in front of Town Hall. The Library was hosting a free showing of Oppenheimer, attended by about 100 people. Meanwhile, the Center for Adult Enrichment had well-attended bridge and line dancing programming at the same time. The Library and Center for Adult Enrichment have special events throughout the year that require more parking than on a typical weekday.
Proposed Motion: To rank the Town’s Outdoor Recreation Grant applications as follows: ________ is the Town’s top priority, and ________ as the second priority.
President Kustell stated that the Parks & Recreation Committee voted to prioritize the Skate Park that was discussed at their last meeting over the splashpad improvements. He said that this will stand unless this Council decides to take another action. He said it makes sense to bring and consider whether we think that prioritizing the skatepark or if prioritizing the splash pad would make more sense.
Vice President Humm said that he does not disagree with what Town Manager mentioned on the parking at the high school location. He said that he does not feel strongly one way or another. He said that we have a unanimous recommendation from one of our boards and commissions. They have looked at it closely and has looked at the idea of a skate park for many, many years. He said that he knows a lot of the people on that committee and have been on the committee for many years. He commented that it has been a recurring issue for them. He said if that is their recommendation, then he said that he will support what they recommended.
Councilwoman Conway stated that she agreed.
President Kustell said it appears we have three members in agreement. He does not think we necessarily need to take action on it. He said that he has seen a demand for the splashpad and sees it all through the summer. He said that he sees lots of toddlers and little kids out there with caregivers and parents. He does not know that he has seen that with the idea of the skatepark and so just for the record, he may not have a majority on the council. He said that his instinct is that we should prioritize the splash pad and we do have some demand for the skatepark and there's one individual in particular whose since he was elected has been arguing for it. He said that he knows for sure that on hot weather days kids are at the splash pad. He said that he is leaning that way and believes that people would use it and use it extensively. He said that is where he stands. He said that is why he put it on the agenda in case there was similar sentiment among my colleagues. He said he is somewhat curious about how a BMX track fits in and he was not aware until fairly recently that it might be part of the plan. He asked if anyone would like to make a motion.
Vice President Humm asked the Solicitor does it need to be a formalized motion.
Assistant Town Solicitor said yes it would be better to have a motion.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mike Seward, North Lake Drive. He said it is your decision about the ranking. He said that the difference between the first ranked project and the second ranked project is two points out of 93 or 97 points. Mr. Seward shared an email from a gentleman who developed skate parks about this very issue who commented on my question about the BMX deal He is from Stone Ranch a Skate Park in California.
“All of our skate parks, including this one, (he actually submitted a preliminary design) are designed and built to withstand abuse from all non-motorized wheel sports. So mixing bikes and skateboards in this park will not be a problem. Plus, trying to enforce different hours for skateboards and bikes be a huge hassle. So, you might as well open it up to all wheels from the beginning and let things sort themselves out. So typically, skateboards and BMX, work together on new sites.”
Mr. Seward said that there is four primary skate park developers and are all included in Sourcewell. He said that they go out and get contractors to submit prices competency and they vet these for towns and Barrington has a contract with Sourcewell. He said that there is four skateboard contracts with Sourcewell and Spoon Ranch is one of them.
Tom Rimoshytus, 1 Howard Street said that he is a member of the Park and Recreation Committee. He said that we have been trying to get this done for many years and vetted out a lot of problems with skate parks. This got voted on last month. He questioned why it is back on the agenda. He said that you have $100,000 of ARPA money. He said as a commission, we came up with our recommendation and it was to go forward with the skatepark. The skate parks always had people that skate and bike together. He said to come back and ask for another vote because it didn't go right the first time is not right.
President Kustell said to clarify, this was to prioritize, not to revisit the issue entirely.
President Kustell closed public comment.
Vice President Humm said that he has a motion but commented that he actually agrees with President Kustell. He said actually he views this the opposite way, this is actually supporting what our board and commission did, because when it was voted on at the last meeting, it wasn't prioritized. He said what we had is two different items that were going to the state as part of this grant. He said that if we put these two items towards a grant, they basically cancel each other out. He said that we are actually prioritizing them, and we are prioritizing the skatepark. So that's the purpose of this vote.
Councilwoman Berard asked are these due tomorrow and if it is technically accurate, if it's been written. If it's ready to be submitted, she said she knows it is two points. It's very close. We just need to fill in the number.
Town Manager said he wanted clarification that Council approved $35,000 for the fence from ARPA money.
Planning Director Crean said that she was assigned to submit the Skate Park application to Rhode Island DEM. She said that Chair Seward has done a lot of legwork by getting the ideas down in the application form. She is completing the application and has been going back and forth to clarify the expectations of the BMX piece, and also the signage costs that Mr. Seward has been looking into. She said that the application is written and it will be ready to be submitted on Wednesday.
Councilwoman Berard said she is questioning the last meeting regarding Legion Way, safety concerns came up quite a bit about the gapping between the equipment that's at the current skate park.
Town Manager Hervey said that he will check on the status of the equipment but believes it is all set.
Motion by Vice President Humm, seconded by Councilman Cloutier, to rank the Town’s Outdoor Recreation Grant applications as follows: Skatepark is the Town’s top priority, and the Police Cove Splash Pad Expansion Project as the second priority. The motion passed in favor, 4-1-0-0, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier one (1) opposed, President Kustell, no recusals and no abstentions.
AGENDA ITEM # 20: DISCUSS AND ACT: CONSERVATION/CLIMATE RESILIENCY (STANDING AGENDA ITEM)
TM Comment: This is a standing agenda item.
Motion: No motion provided.
There was no discussion.
AGENDA ITEM #21: PUBLIC COMMENT (MAXIMUM 3-MINUTE STATEMENT)
To the public: This agenda item is for members of the public to speak regarding a topic that is not already on the agenda. Please indicate that you would like to speak by raising your hand. When you are recognized, please state your name and residency for the record.
There was no Public Comment.
AGENDA ITEM #22: SET AGENDA FOR THE MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 2024, COUNCIL MEETING
1. A-Frame Signs
2. Banner Program
3. Final Report from Traverse Landscaping Architects
4. RFP for 25 Watson Avenue Carmelite Monastery
5. Community Engagement – Town Council Goal Setting
6. Property Tax Relief for Longtime Barrington Taxpayers (A. Klepper) (January 8, 2024)
7. Climate Action Plan Bid Award
AGENDA ITEM #23 ADJOURN
Motion by Councilman Cloutier and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to adjourn the meeting at 11:05PM. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilwoman Conway and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.
___________________________________________
Meredith J. DeSisto, CMC, Barrington Town Clerk