The town is moving forward with the development of a pocket neighborhood on the Carmelite monastery property. 

Members of the Barrington Town Council recently voted 4-1 to authorize the town manager to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for the construction of a small neighborhood within the seven-acre town-owned property. 

The development plan, which was created by the Barrington Planning Board, features 12 homes that will be marketed as senior housing — for people 55 and older. A portion of the homes will qualify as low- to moderate-income housing. The town is also expected to sell off six single-family house lots and preserve about two acres of the property as open space. 

According to a memo from Barrington Town Manager Phil Hervey to the Council, the goal is to have a recommendation on the developer for the pocket neighborhood ready for the Town Council meeting in April. At that time, the Council could vote to approve the development plan and authorize the town to enter into a purchase and sales agreement with the chosen developer. Final approval will be subject to a taxpayer vote at the Barrington Financial Town Meeting in May. 

All of the work on the Watson Avenue property hinges on public approval for the demolition of the monastery building, a large brick structure that was home to Carmelite nuns for more than 50 years. Barrington purchased the property from the Diocese of Providence in June 2021. There is also a chapel inside the building. 

In a second motion at their recent meeting, members of the Council voted unanimously to make a few changes to the development plan for the pocket neighborhood. 

Council members called for the removal of a proposed community center on the property and questioned the location of a parking area in the plans. They called for the use of native plantings and a larger vegetative buffer between the pocket neighborhood and surrounding properties. 

Council member Kate Berard also asked that developers who include a higher number of affordable housing units be extended bonus points when considering the RFPs. 

Public comments

While most Council members are in favor of moving forward with the development of a pocket neighborhood on the monastery property, some residents were opposed. 

Carl Van Warmerdam said the monastery property was an example of good intentions gone back. He said it was disappointing that an earlier architect had suggested that it would be feasible to transform the monastery building into senior housing. Van Warmerdam said the town should not be in the business of creating housing stock, adding that the town is clinging to a plan that resident do not want. 

Blaise Rein said the RFP was not ready for issuance. He also said officials should wait for the completion of the town’s climate action plan, as it would likely include direction about the development of the property.

Paige Barbour asked questions about the HOA — HomeOwners Association — which will be created for the pocket neighborhood. Barbour asked what the HOA will be expected to manage. Berard said the HOA would not have any role in the six single family lots or the two acres of open space. The HOA was limited to the pocket neighborhood, she said. 

Mary Grenier was also concerned about the HOA and the decision to give up control of the property to an HOA. Grenier opposed the town’s move to develop a pocket neighborhood and asked if there was any way for officials to reconsider the approach. 

Diane Lipscombe said the timeline for the development seemed aggressive and asked about the potential demolition of the monastery building. 

Tom “TR” Rimoshytus asked if the development of the property will need to be approved at the Financial Town Meeting. 

Hervey said the town will seek FTM approval for selling the single family house lots and for demolition of the monastery building. 

Earlier in the meeting, Hervey explained that the town would be responsible for demolishing the building because it is selling off the single-family house lots separately. He said that if the development of the property was being advertised as a single site, then demolition of the building could have been left to the contractor.