Condo Developer Appeals Denial
North End Holdings has appealed the Barrington Planning Board's decision to deny the condominium development proposed in rural Nockum Hill near the wildlife refuge.
The condominium development proposed for rural Nockum Hill in Barrington -- The Residences at the Preserve -- is not going away quietly after all.
The developer, North End Holdings of Wakefield, RI, has filed an appeal of the Planning Board's Aug. 27 decision to the State Housing Appeals Board (SHAB).
The grounds for the appeal are listed as:
- The decision is not consistent with local needs of Barrington and is unreasonable in relation to the town's affordable housing needs.
- The Planning Board improperly applied the incorrect version of Barrington's Affordable Housing Plan, and the decision conflicts with the applicable provisions of Barrington's Affordable Housing Plan and Comprehensive Plan.
- The findings in the decision are not supported by the record.
- Barrington is not meeting its affordable housing needs.
- The decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record.
- The decision is arbitrary and capricious and characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
The appeal was filed by attorney William R. Landry of Blish & Cavanaugh of Providence.
Barrington Town Planner Phil Hervey said it is the first appeal of a rejected housing development since Sweetbriar in West Barrington, which ended up in the state Supreme Court.
The decision by the Planning Board on Aug. 27 was unanimous -- 6-0. It echoed a straw vote on the housing complex taken at the July meeting.
As planned, the development includes 24 condos primarily in a former horse paddock that abuts farmland and lies just east of the Doug Rayner Wildlife Refuge. Up to a half dozen of the condos are affordable housing units.
The motion that denied the application states:
“Denial is based on the Planning Board’s determination that the proposal’s density, design and location conflict with multiple goals, policies and strategies of the Affordable Housing Plan and the Comprehensive Community Plan, and raise concerns about its potential impact on the environment and health and safety.”
The decision by the board “is based upon the following legal conclusions, each supported by findings of fact.”
- The Town has an approved affordable housing plan, is meeting housing needs through its adoption of the implementation program of the approved affordable housing plan and has made significant effort to accomplishing the purposes and expectations of the approved affordable housing plan.
- The proposal, certified as complete on March 26, 2012, is inconsistent with the Town’s affordable housing plan, as described below.
- The proposal is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Future Land Use Map.
- The Town has plans to meet the goal of ten percent (10%) of the year‐round units being low and moderate‐income housing in accordance with the approved Affordable Housing Plan, as contained within the Housing & Neighborhoods element of the Comprehensive Community Plan.
- Concerns for the environment and the health and safety of current residents have not been adequately addressed. The applicant, as stated in a letter from attorney William Landry dated July 3, 2012, has declined to provide the Town an engineering review fee at the master plan stage, which was requested by the Planning Board at the May 2012 meeting. The applicant’s engineer, Scott Moorehead of S.F.M. Engineering, has stated the proposal would have no negative environmental effects. However, peer review by a third‐party engineer would have enabled the Town to more thoroughly evaluate the plans and the issues cited below, as well as potentially identify other issues not listed.
Gary Morse
7:58 am on Thursday, October 4, 2012
Now maybe the town will wake up and challenge the idea that ONLY deed restricted homes can count when counting affordable homes.
The town DID NOT challenge this in the Sweetbriar lawsuit and just let it go that RI Housing TELLS Barrington how to count an affordable home.
RI Housing has admitted that this matter is debateable and only a court of law will be able to settle the matter.
But our current town council members June Speakman and Kate Weymouth are proponents of affordable housing and will likely not challenge this if they are voted back on the council.
This is about a towns right to self determination.
Gary Morse
8:43 am on Thursday, October 4, 2012
What does the law actually say about how to write the Comprehensive Community Plan?
It says that the town is required to read two Acts, not just one as the town is currently doing.
(6) Housing. "The plan shall include an affordable housing program that meets the requirements of § 42-128-8.1, the "Comprehensive Housing Production and Rehabilitation Act of 2004" and chapter 45-53, the "Rhode Island Low and Moderate Income Housing Act". The plan must include goals and policies that further the goal of subdivision 45-22.2-3(c)(3) and implementation techniques that identify specific programs to promote the preservation, production, and rehabilitation of housing.
The former Act does not specify deed restricted homes in the count, the latter does.
Our towns legal counsel has to begin thinking about the interests of residents, not ideaology.
Pam
9:02 am on Friday, October 5, 2012
"Our towns legal counsel has to begin thinking about the interests of residents, not ideaology."
Well said!
Scott Clark
4:18 pm on Thursday, October 4, 2012
I agree. However, given the costs incurred first by the residents of Sweetbriar and then by the Town in fighting it all the way to the State Supreme Court, I can imagine they're a bit concerned about the costs. They probably haven't squirreled away a legal budget to do that same fight again.
Granted, *this* time the case is stronger because the town does have a Comprehensive Plan that has been approved by the State. From what I understand, the Town did not have a State-approved Comprehensive Plan that included LMIH milestones the last time around. They also failed to adequately prove neighborhood harm and a few other things, but the biggest gotcha seemed to be the Comp Plan.
So, it comes down to:
1. Does the Town have the interest in fighting this all the way to State again? We can help decide that on Election Day. Then from there we can set about getting legal counsel for the town that isn't connected to EBCDC.
2. If so, do they have the resources to do it?
3. If not, will the residents be willing to approve whatever revenue generation is required to fight it?
Related though is whether the Town will try to use approving Sowams Nursery has a proxy to fight against Nockum Hill. BOTH are bad ideas for the Town, but the most successfui way to block them both and future considerations is going back to the State.
Which goes back to #1 above :)
Gary Morse
5:18 pm on Thursday, October 4, 2012
Scott,
There is a high cost not to challenge. There are currently several town ordinances that should be challenged which make financial sense, the biggest being the architectural consistency ordinance which denies any future "Atlantic Crossing" type development and restricting all future development in town to low cost construction (see section 185 - 185(C) )
There is another ordinance which allows zoning waivers for affordable housing which will go on forever since the town can never meet the 10% mandate (as admitted by every town official involved in the housing issues).
Thus the long term cost to the town as a result of the current affordable housing ordinances is worth the cost of making a court challenge.
Gary Morse
9:50 am on Friday, October 5, 2012
How much "affordable housing" is currently in Barrington?
As one measure, I used RI Housing's own housing calculator for a household of 3 children and two adults as the maximum house that can be purchased under the affordability guidelines
The calculator showed a "calculated maximum purchase price" of $346,000.
However, that is NOT the full value of the home, but instead, it is the discounted value after the family receives federal grants to help in the purchase. So the actual value would be even higher. But for argument, let's leave the amount at $346K.
How many homes in town are currently valued at $346K or below?
According to the 2011 Barrington tax roll, over 1/3rd of the homes in town fall below $346K in assessed value.
The point being, the 10% mandate figures have been rigged to promote big government oversight and the slow elimination of a town's right to self determination.
That is what is really going on here! Councilors Speakman and Weymouth feel this is what government should be promoting.
Residents I have spoken to strongly disagree with this policy of creating a problem where no problem actually exists.