The largest housing development in the history of Barrington moved into the public review process last week.

During a midafternoon meeting on Thursday, Jan. 15, members of the town’s Technical Review Committee asked questions, shared concerns and offered suggestions to the team of people proposing the construction of 344 housing units on the former Zion Bible College campus. 

TRC members discussed the number and size of the parking spaces proposed for the development, the density of the project, the affordability of the low- to moderate-income level units, the impact on the town’s infrastructure (utilities, traffic, and more), and a number of other issues. The written account from the meeting will be shared with the Barrington Planning Board, which holds the power to approve or deny the developer’s application. The planning board will hold its first public hearing for the project on Tuesday, Feb. 3, at 7 p.m.

The TRC, which serves in an advisory role to the planning board, offered wide-ranging comments to the development team, which was led by Charlie Kalocsay, the president of Shineharmony Holdings Inc. Shineharmony owns the 39.5-acre property.

Following the meeting, Kalocsay said the remarks from TRC will be helpful. 

“It was a very productive meeting and hopefully brought up and gave us a chance to reflect on some of the key issues with the application, what the town sees,” Kalocsay said. 

Visitor parking?

It did not take long for TRC members to raise questions and concerns about the development’s parking and density.

Ted Wetherill told Kalocsay that overall, the design was an “engineering marvel,” in that his team managed to squeeze 344 housing units onto the property. Wetherill also said that the 517 parking spaces allotted was barely enough to accommodate the housing being proposed. 

“…what happens to visitors?” Wetherill asked, questioning where any non-residents would park when visiting people at the development.

Suanne Santos, with the engineering firm hired by Shineharmony Holdings, said they were using state guidelines for parking. 

Wetherill pushed back on that. 

“I don’t think there’s enough parking … or there’s too many units,” he said, raising a question about whether the 39.5-acre parcel could accommodate the 344 units as well as the required parking, roadways, drainage and open space. (Barrington Town Planner Herb Durfee referenced the need for the developer to include recreational space in the housing complex for school-age children.)

TRC member Larry Bacher asked to see the baseline computation for required parking, but Santos was not able to provide that. Wetherill said many of the proposed units would be for two-income families, but there would not be enough parking for two vehicles per family. 

On more than one occasion, Durfee tried to explain some details of the plan as questions were raised by TRC members. He referenced “statutory requirements” and issues from legislative changes. 

More parking questions

Wetherill was the first TRC member to question the specific size of the parking spaces included in the plan, but he was not the last. 

Wetherill said the plan calls for parking spaces that are seven feet wide and 20 feet deep. He said that was a very small space.

Bacher, who also sits on the planning board, shared Wetherill’s concern. He said normal parking spaces are eight feet wide — or wider — and 21 feet deep. 

“I’m not aware of anyone who has spaces seven feet wide and 20 feet (deep),” Bacher said. 

He also challenged the width of the road lanes included in the plan — Bacher said 12-foot wide travel lanes are required, not the 10-foot lanes in the plan. Bacher said the housing development seemed to be “remarkably” tight. 

Santos said the narrower parking spaces were applicable in residential areas, but Bacher pushed back. He said he checked with numerous other communities in Rhode Island (he listed many East Bay towns as well as Providence and other large communities), and “… no one has seven feet.” Bacher said all the other cities and towns required parking spaces eight feet or wider, adding that the parking lane aisles were typically 24 feet long. Durfee said he thought the parking in Jamestown, where he lives, is narrower than eight feet, but TRC members did not agree. 

During the discussion, Santos also said that the development team limited the number of parking spaces in an effort to reduce the amount of impervious — asphalt and concrete — surfaces in the project. 

Wetherill asked for the percentage of pervious surfaces — such as grass — for the whole site, but Santos could not produce that information immediately. 

Wetherill questioned the logic of reducing the parking to reduce the impervious spaces. 

What about handicap parking? 

TRC member Jon Stabach drove a bit deeper into questions of parking. He asked the development team how they were addressing the handicap accessible parking. Those spaces typically require more room than other parking spaces, which, in the plan, were already undersized, said TRC members. 

Santos said the development would include the handicap accessible parking spaces, but they had not been designated yet. Durfee reminded the development team that their plan needed that specific information, and that an increasing list of missing items could necessitate a revised site plan. 

Bacher shared a lengthy list of questions and concerns with the development team. He spoke about the pervious pavement proposed for the project — he said it is not as sturdy as traditional pavement, and that the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management has very specific requirements for ongoing maintenance of pervious pavement. Bacher said there are also specific installation requirements for pervious pavement. 

Beaver Road abutters

One of Bacher’s comments focused on the development’s northern boundary line, which abuts with the backyards of Beaver Road residents.

Bacher said the plan shows the developer bringing the alley pathways directly to the property lines with Beaver Road lots. 

“The zoning ordinance requires a 20-foot set-back,” Bacher said, adding “That would be a very hard waiver to write.”

Bacher asked about the plans for a retail space — possibly a coffee shop — on the property. He asked if Shineharmony Holdings was including parking for customers. That led to more questions about whether the parking was also being used as a public walkway. Different pages of the plan reportedly showed different uses for the space, which led Durfee to remind the development team that the plan needed to be consistent. 

Bacher added: “It’s a little confusing… I’m more concerned about pedestrians being asked to stroll through a traffic area.”

Some of Bacher’s additional comments included the use of bituminous curbing (the zoning ordinance requires granite curbing), whether the developer is planning to subdivide the property; the removal of existing vegetation — trees, etc. — at the southwestern part of the site; whether the existing cell tower installation inside the Belton Court tower has been properly reviewed, as is required by zoning ordinance; DEM restrictions on walking paths in buffer areas, which was included in the plan; and whether the preserved portion of Belton Court mansion will be open to the public or just to the people who live on the property. 

Kalocsay said it would be open to the public. 

Density

Officials discussed the density of the housing project — the 344 units will be divided into 220 multi-family apartments, 66 townhouses, and 58 single-family homes.

Assistant town solicitor Amy Goins said a special zoning designation was created for the property which would allow for the proposed density. But, she added, that zone was created with a different development in mind. The previous plan called for an age-restricted 55-and-older housing development. Shineharmony’s plan is not age-restricted. 

“There’s something for the planning board to think about,” Goins said. 

Later in the meeting, Wetherill posed a question to the Shineharmony team. He said he did the math on the density of the proposal and that it equals 6,000 units per square mile. Wetherill said the density of Central Falls is 6,800 units per square mile. 

“Why do you feel the site needs such density?” Wetherill asked.

Kalocsay offered two explanations. The first, he said, was the help the town reach the state goal of 10 percent affordable housing. (Barrington is currently at 3.9 percent, and officials estimate that this project would move the town to about 5 percent.)

Kalocsay said the other reason was that there are significant costs associated with land development. 

Wetherill asked about significantly reducing the number of units in the plan. Kalocsay said that would mean scaling back features. 

Bottlenecks and back-ups

TRC member Richard Godfrey questioned the traffic study — he said it was too small in scope. He said there would be many more vehicles added to local roads because of the development, and those additional vehicles would yield traffic bottlenecks and back-ups. 

Godfrey said the immediate impacts would be to Middle Highway and Primrose Hill Road. He said hundreds of additional vehicles would be added to the roads during peak times, which “creates huge capacity issues.”

Godfrey also pointed to the potential impacts to the traffic along the Wampanoag Trail. He said many more cars will be merging onto the southbound travel lanes and trying to move left to the northbound turnaround. 

“You need to look at mitigation methods,” Godfrey said. 

How affordable?

Godfrey, who served previously as executive director of Rhode Island Housing, raised concerns about the affordable housing details of the project — specifically, he said the affordable units were not affordable at all. 

Godfrey said any household making $137,000 a year will qualify for the developer’s affordable units. He said this project will only add to the general characteristic of Barrington being an upscale town. 

Godfrey told Kalocsay and his team that he believes they can do better than that, and should offer affordable units for people making far less than $137,000 a year. 

“… the planning board and the town are well within the law to require the different levels…” Godfrey said. 

Bacher asked for details on the affordable housing plan. The developer’s attorney, Matthew Landry, said they would provide them, and Durfee said that Shineharmony Holdings may not have a full vision of the affordable housing in the plan. He added that he would be willing to revisit the plan for the affordable units on an annual basis. 

Goins rejected that offer by Durfee. 

“I don’t think that’s going to fly under the statute,” she said. “I don’t think a yearly review is going to be sufficient.”

That schedule needs to be created now, she said. (The developer is proposing 25 percent of the units, or 86 of the 344, be deed-restricted affordable.)

Goins said the developer needs to identify the affordable housing units. She said the planning board needs that information. 

Kalocsay said the buildings have not been designed yet, so it is difficult for them to show which units will be affordable. Goins said the planning board needs a certain level of detail. 

Developer’s reaction

Following the meeting, Kalocsay said that he was not surprised by the TRC members’ comments.

“Not at all. We were expecting these types of comments and we’re going to go through the process to address them,” he said. 

He also said Shineharmony is still considering its options for building the development. 

“I think it’s flexible at this point. We may bring in partners. We may develop it all ourselves. In all likelihood, we will bring in some partners for certain components of the project,” he said. 

When asked if he has heard from any residents and abutters regarding the project, Kalocsay said, “Just general comments over the years about density, but without fully understanding or appreciating the nature of the project so part of it is an education process.”