Some History of 'Palmer Pointe' Site
COD 02806 offers in a letter to the editor some history on the Sowams Nursery site proposed for a Barrington affordable housing development; the citizens group opposes the development.
An aerial view of the proposed Palmer Pointe development on the Sowams Nursery site near the Palmer River.
Union Studio
Photos (3)
Photos
On January 11, 2006 the Barrington Planning Board denied an application for a Major Subdivision consisting of 8 privately owned residences (“Osprey Landing”) on the Sowams Nursery property on Sowams road.
This is the same property on which the East Bay Community Development Corporation (EBCDC) seeks to construct 48 units of low and moderate income rental housing.
In their decision denying the “Osprey Landing” application, the Board (none of whose members are on the present Planning Board) included the following rationale for their denial:
- “The applicant sought to maximize the number of house lots at the expense of good planning design: alternative configurations with fewer lots could have reduced the number of requested waivers;”
- “The Master Plan proposal does not conform to the following aspects of the Comprehensive Plan:
- “Insure that future residential development is done in a manner that preserves Barrington’s character* and quality of life, including sensitivity to important open space areas and significant natural resources”.
- “Insure that new residential development addresses Barrington’s housing goals by rigorously meeting all subdivision and zoning regulations”.
The current edition of the Barrington Comprehensive Community Plan (BCCP) dated December 5, 2011 is rife with references protecting the character*, special qualities and ecology of existing Barrington neighborhoods including the following:
pg. 19 - “Goals, Policies, Strategies and Actions”:
- “Provide for future housing needs, including a range of housing types and prices for families and seniors, in a manner that preserves Barrington’s character* and quality of life through sensitivity to existing neighborhoods, historic resources, important open spaces and environmentally sensitive areas”
- “Ensure that future development is compatible with the character*of Barrington in general and that of individual neighborhoods”.
pg. 116 – “Land Use Goals and Policies”
- “Preserve the predominant residential character* of Barrington, while providing open space and limited commercial industrial and institutional land uses to serve the needs of town residents.”
- “Protect valuable existing natural features, important open space and agricultural land in Barrington, and reclaim areas for environmental restoration including wetlands and waterways, when appropriate.”
- “Ensure that future development is compatible with adjoining land uses, the natural environment, available or planned community services and existing historic and cultural features.”
The question of how we devolved from a Planning Board decision rejecting 8 residential units in an R25 zone on Sowams Nursery as being excessive, and encouraging the development of 48 units on the same property with the same zoning, is deserving of a thorough examination by the current Planning Board in light of existing law and policy.
COD 02806 will continue to probe this and many other issues and report back to you. We feel confident that the law and policy of this state are in our favor.
*Note: The term “character” is defined in the unabridged edition of the Random House Dictionary of the English Language as: “The aggregate of features and traits that form the apparent individual nature of some person or thing.”
COD 02806
Gary Morse
7:58 am on Friday, March 1, 2013
The Barrington Comprehensive Community Plan is deficient in another major way - total lack of a strategy for stabilizing the property tax mil rate.
Barrrington has the highest property tax burden on a per capita basis in RI short of the summer colonies of Jamestown and Block Island. It's going to get much bigger. One of the biggest obstacles to affordable home ownership is an unstable property tax. So why have town officials completely ignored a strategy for maintaining a stable property tax in the Comprehensive Community Plan?
The short answer is that the promoters of affordable housing are single minded in quantity of construction (the 10% mandate), not actually addressing the systemic problems of affordable home ownership being high property taxes.
Consider the new homeowners of Walker Farms. Their property taxes are currently a bargain because the original purchase price of $169,000 was subsidized by a $100,000 grant at the closing (i.e. the actual sales price was really $269,000). As people buy and sell their units, the property sales price will affect all assessments, and the mil rate will be rising at the same time. In the end, all of the Walker Farm properties will see an increase in carrying costs from the time of purchase.
Many of the residents are financially unprepared for this increase.
Town officials have totally ignored this important issue in the Comprehensive Community Plan. It's time to address this "highest tax burden" problem.
Lorraine F
5:45 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013
Gary - where did that $100,000 grant come from? And if the money exchanged was really $269,000, as you say, why are the property taxes based only on a valuation of $169,000?
Gary Morse
8:41 am on Saturday, March 2, 2013
The money came from a Fed/State grant in the form of a "forgiveable" loan to West Elmwood Housing when the project went in.
As each home was sold, part of the forgiveable loan was provided as part of each homes closing costs, payable to West Elmwood Housing.
But the money ran out leaving no money to subsidize the remaining homes sitting on Rt 114.
West Elmwood Housing came to the The Housing Board of Trustees on Dec 18, 2012 suggesting that money be taken out of the Spencer Trust Fund to subsidize the sale price of the remaining homes on Rt 114.
The Housing Board liked the idea saying "This is what the Spencer Trust was for".
The most recent Walker Farm sale was for $202,000 (one of the homes sitting along Rt 114).
This now begs the question, how will the "affordable" homes be reassessed in the upcoming revaluation if in fact the most recent sale was for $202,000, not $169,000.
Our town officials haven't thought about that minor "affordable" problem since they are too busy counting down the 10% mandate.
Why no money was set aside to subsidize the worst of the homes along Rt 114 is a question for the Housing Board of Trustees who managed this project.
Lorraine F
9:07 am on Saturday, March 2, 2013
Gary - Thanks for the answer, but you didn't answer the question - why are they being property tax assessed only at the "subsidized" price of $169,000?
Gary Morse
9:26 am on Sunday, March 3, 2013
Lorraine,
The question of affordable home ownership assessments is unclear at the moment so the town assessor has simply done the assessment based on the $169,000 subsidized price.
It had little to do with town assessing standards (there are none at the moment) and was more of a toss of the coin on how to assess affordable homes vs. how the rest of the town is assessed.
But now that the affordable grant money has run out, this creates a huge problem for those who did their property tax planning on a prior subsidized price of $169,000. All of the remaining homes will be sold as un-subsidized units and thus the "market" based price for the entire project will have to be based on the higher market price of $200K+ for the remaining homes.
That's a bump of around 20% in the coming revaluation which is a walk-through revaluation.
As I said, there was no planning for property tax stability for affordable home ownership in the town's Comprehensive Community Plan.
CRG
9:19 am on Friday, March 1, 2013
Does it seem like there is a push to get the apartment complex on Sowams through without due diligence and understanding the long term impact? Why the hurry?
Is this a short term gain for a few, based on a law that may be reconsidered shortly given that taxpayers and homeowners in several towns and cities are presently questioning the law? Can't we encourage our elected and appointed officials who represent us to be thorough especially as once property is developed, it doesn't have a chance to be undeveloped and returned to its natural state. We have so much at stake, so much that can't be undone that I think we owe it to ourselves, our community, our quality of life, our ability to continue to afford to live where we are and last, but by no means least we owe it to the land and the river, natural treasures that are burdened by many earlier decisions and could be on the tipping point if we aren't careful. As I've read, many of the names on the COD petition are from Hampden Meadows but isn't this a concern for all of Barrington.
B/STOCK
4:51 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013
I am against this for a number of reasons. #1 is very simple. I cannot afford to pay any additional property taxes. I think the straw that broke the camel's back has already landed . My wife and I want to stay in Barrington during our retirement years but that pesky $14,000 a year property tax with a promise of more to come has us exploring our options. RI is the #1 state for welfare benefits & right up there in unemployment. Our financial advisors tell us to sell and move to MA because of the local & state taxes & RI doesn't look like it's going to improve. Are we going to wind up like homeowners in Detroit where their homes & land are worthless? The subsidizing housing folks should check Realitor.com and see all the homes in Barrington selling under 250K. There are a lot of properties ranging from $139,999 up. These are very affordable homes. Let stop the exodus of the taxpaying homeowners that require a minimum of services and replacing them with folks that pay no taxes and require a ton of social services. Yep, it's about the money and quality of life. The last time I posted a reply of this nature I guess it was considered un PC because it was removed.