Members of the Barrington Planning Board presented Shineharmony Holdings LLC. a to-do list on Tuesday night, June 2.

The board summarized all the items — concerns, questions, requests for details, and more — that Shineharmony officials need to provide as part of their permit application for the proposed Belton Court Village housing project. 

The list was extensive, recapping more than five months of planning board application review and the previous technical review committee meeting.

Barrington Planning Board member Larry Bacher went one step further. Bacher told Shineharmony Holdings LLC. President Charlie Kalocsay and attorney William Landry that the Belton Court Village application went beyond the intent of the comprehensive permit statute. Bacher said the development team was actually requesting a rewrite of the zoning, which was a separate process that involved the Barrington Town Council. 

Bacher also told Kalocsay and Landry that Shineharmony was asking the planning board to approve “a site plan” — he said the application packet fails to include the central element of a comprehensive permit, which is a housing plan.

Bacher called Shineharmony’s application “vapor ware,” referring to it as a product that the developer is trying to sell but it does not actually exist. 

Bacher, who also sits as a member of the Barrington Technical Review Committee, said Shineharmony’s application was nearly identical to the concept plan they presented in March 2024. He said there has been no real development to the plan since that point: No floor plans; no elevations; no specific building information. 

“This application … does not qualify for a comprehensive permit. Does anyone disagree?” Bacher asked his fellow planning board members. No one disagreed. 

Shineharmony Holdings LLC is requesting more than a dozen waivers as part of its plan to build a 344-unit housing project on the former Zion Bible College property in Barrington. 

Belton Court mansion

Barrington Planning Board Chair Roni Phipps shared the summary of items the board is requesting as part of the Belton Court Village application.

The list included housing types, housing density, placement of affordable housing units, and the preservation of Belton Court mansion. 

Phipps, summarizing comments from earlier meetings, said Belton Court is an historic building and is worth saving. She said the planning board wants the applicant to hire a specialist to investigate the reuse of Belton Court mansion. Planning board member Rick Simms added that the applicant has alleged that the cost to rehabilitate or reuse Belton Court is prohibitive, but, Simms added, the only reason the cost may be prohibitive is because of the applicant’s own actions. Simms is referring to Shineharmony’s failings to properly maintain and protect Belton Court mansion. Belton Court is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Simms’s comment drew a loud round of applause from the dozens of residents who attended Tuesday night’s meeting inside the town hall council chambers. Planning board solicitor Andy Teitz reprimanded the audience, stating that the public comment portion of the meeting was over and that applause is a form of public comment. 

Phipps listed other items: Water, fire, and safety, referring to concerns and questions surrounding water supply and potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods and the rest of the town, stormwater runoff, pervious and impervious surfaces, and details regarding traffic impacts. 

The development’s fiscal impact to town services, the sewer system, and local public schools made the list. Phipps added that the planning board has not received any information regarding fiscal impact. 

In addition, the planning board is requesting various details and information about land use issues, buffers, retail spaces, community spaces, trees and vegetation, ecology, sustainability, and open space. 

Bacher said he found Shineharmony’s application very confusing. He said there were duplicates of certain documents, and that some of the tables and charts featured contradictory or conflicting information. Bacher said the details need to be consistent. 

Phipps also told Landry and Kalocsay that the planning board is requesting a certificate of good standing for Shineharmony from the Rhode Island Secretary of State. 

Further items on the planning board list were the types of housing units and affordability levels. She said the plan calls for housing that is 120% AMI (area median income), which is available to people making more than $150,000 annually. Phipps said the project should be available to people who do not make that much money. 

The planning board also reminded Shineharmony officials of the different types of housing that the town’s comprehensive plan calls for: Senior housing and housing for disabled adults. 

Changing plans?

Landry shared a response to the planning board’s summary. He said the development team has been meeting and discussing the plan: the density, everything dimensional, parking space widths, parking space sizes, sidewalks, open space, more diversity of housing, affordability, accessible options, and drainage modifications. 

Landry said the development team’s work on the plan will require more time, referencing floor plans and elevations. He said the team will not have construction plans, but they recognize that information can be clearer. 

Landry said a lot of the information in the plan is moot now — even the drainage. He said the team will have specific calculations with the new plan. That comment drew a response from Bacher. He said the planning board has been asking for calculations that, for whatever reason, the applicant has not yet provided. He cautioned that if the developer proceeds with a different plan, “they proceed entirely at their own risk.”