.

Houses SOLD: 5 Homes Change Hands

Five warranty deeds were recorded in the Barrington Town Hall last for properties that got new owners.

Five warranty deeds that showed an exchange of properties from a seller to a buyer were recorded in the Barrington Town Hall last week, May 6-12.

The deeds include one property that sold for $735,000 and one affordable housing property at Walker Farm Lane that was repurchased from its first owner.

The other warranty deeds can give you some idea of the price of Barrington properties in the Nayatt, Sowams and Primrose Hill neighborhoods.

Address Price Seller Buyer 2 Cranberry Court
$735,000 Christopher Luttmann
Derek C. Merck & Lisa H. Merck
688 County Road
$272,000 Roger G. Burau & Sondra Burau
Renee B. Lute & Zachary P. Lute
19 Walker Farm Lane
$210,000 Denise M. Mitsuma
RI Housing & Mortgage Finance Corp.
346 Nayatt Road
$457,000 Ronnie C. Ramos
Lance Vachon
425 Sowams Road
$210,000 Robert E. Johannis & Celeste V. Johannis
Donna Adams & Joseph Adams
Manifold Witness May 17, 2012 at 04:50 PM
RIHMFC had to buy back 19 Walker Farm Lane. 425 Sowams Road went for the same price. Please discuss the implications.
Bristol County Anonymous May 17, 2012 at 05:03 PM
1) "Affordable housing" is unwanted, unneeded, and the concept is outdated. 2) We already have enough affordable housing. 3) Our Government is broken. 4) Developers, lawyers, and the "non-profit" EBDC's of the world are the only benificiaries. 5) The arbitrary 10% state laws need to be scrapped.
Ignorance is not bliss May 18, 2012 at 12:41 AM
The town of Barrington needs to back off from the dense housing projects and only do the individual affordable housing units where it makes sense to do. Give the state time to see the error of their ways. If we put affordable housing where it makes sense then there should be no regrets. We can't sacrifice open space for dense housing projects. You can't get open space back. How do we change the course of this?
Manifold Witness May 18, 2012 at 01:24 AM
Get the legislature to repeal the "10%" statute. Get them to recognize in the "affordable" count houses that are now "affordable" due to the economy, not just so-called "affordable restricted"/subsidized housing. RIHMFC has to get realistic data instead of the Housingworksri data that they are using. The legislature has to recognize that those who pay the "non-affordable" property taxes includes folks who earn less than some of those who qualify for "affordable" housing. This puts unfair tax burdens upon the "non-affordable" taxpayers and, as Gary Morse has said, this is a problem. Revise the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Pernitting process so that they eliminate spot zoning and are fair to the "non-affordable" developers like the couple who wanted to put 7 residences (or 12 would have been nice) on the Sowams property but were denied - you know- 'cause of the curvy road.
Ignorance is not bliss May 18, 2012 at 12:31 PM
How do we get the legislature to repeal the 10% statute? Or at least amend it to recognize that we are still in the middle of or maybe the tail end of a housing crisis.
Shades of Gray May 18, 2012 at 01:51 PM
It's a shame what happened at 19 Walker Farm. Instead of building new properties, maybe $ would be better spent fixing up older properties and selling them affordably. They could be purchased at a reasonable price and then renovated if need be. No new buildings to take up more space. They could count those towards the 10%. Not against the 10%, but looks like properties are already available that could count.
Gary Morse May 18, 2012 at 02:17 PM
Thus the fallacy that affordable housing is always desired and of benefit to the residents of RI. A question: who guarantees RIHMFC's loans?
Ignorance is not bliss May 19, 2012 at 12:50 AM
Excellent point Shades of Gray. It's common sense. The green way to go. Rebuild, remodel, reuse. Not destroy the valuable limited open space we have left. Fixing up properties would add value to the town and surrounding neighborhood.
Gary Morse May 19, 2012 at 01:28 AM
Ignorance, You have to understand that a primary goal of Barrington Comprehensive Community Plan is in fact to "infill" all available space in town. This was noted in the review of the Sowams project that Sowams fulfills the infill goal because Sowams is deemed "vacant land" (in spite of the fact that the town recognizes it, and taxes it, as being agricultural land). Look up the planning concept of "infill". You will find that since we are close to a city center, the concept means we "infill" all available space leaving more rural land farther out. Why we in Barrington are subsidizing this in a declining population is absurd.
Shades of Gray May 19, 2012 at 07:55 PM
The "infill" aspect is unfair. Don't all the towns have to follow the same mandate? Why does Barrington have to have such a requirement and other towns like, say, Little Compton doesn't?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »