Members of the Barrington Town Council will wait until the fall before deciding the fate of the Carmelite monastery property. 

During the May 1 Council meeting, officials discussed the most recent development plan for the property. Some Councilors also debated whether the town should divide the property into house lots or leave it as undeveloped open space.

Annelise Conway said that while affordable and senior housing were discussed during the financial town meeting in 2021 where taxpayers voted to purchase the property, housing was never part of the actual FTM motion. 

Conway said pushing off the decision until the fall will give town officials and residents more time to find a palatable, creative plan forward. 

Conway spoke about the town’s need for more fields, more open space, and how climate resiliency is the number one priority. She questioned how clear-cutting the property for new housing would support the town’s needs. 

Council President Carl Kustell said the town could use more open space, but added that the original plan never called for the property to be used exclusively for open space. 

Kustell and Kate Berard discussed the town’s financial obligation to recoup money spent on the property; the town purchased the seven-acre parcel for $3.2 million, and the town has spent tens of thousands of dollars maintaining the monastery building. 

Conway said the town did not purchase the monastery property for the purpose of ensuring financial feasibility for developers. 

Kustell said developing housing on the property was one of Barrington’s best opportunities for creating affordable housing, but Conway disagreed. She said building houses on the monastery property would increase the town’s stock of million dollar homes, but have no impact on the need for affordable housing in Barrington. The most recent development plans include seven single-family housing lots and a 68,000 square foot lot that would used for a “pocket neighborhood.” Only one of the single family homes would be designated low- to moderate-income, and 25 percent of the pocket neighborhood would carry the same designation. 

Conway said that most of the plans created earlier in the process are based heavily in the financial feasibility for a developer — some earlier plans called for more than 50 units to be built on the property. 

Conway said she was in favor of keeping the property as open space, and she also called for the return of the 25 Watson Ave. Ad Hoc Committee, which had been involved in the planning process. 

Rob Humm said he supported a plan that would allow for as much open space as possible while also providing some affordable and senior housing. 

More than a half-dozen residents spoke during the discussion.

Allan Klepper told Council members they owed it to the public to be clear that the new plans call for the demolition of the monastery building. Twice the public has voted to preserve the building, but the new plans eliminate the structure. 

Paige Barbour said the town was moving in the right direction with its most recent plans. She also offered a series of questions that she believes must be answered before the town can move forward.

Elizabeth Greiser said the voice of conservation had been absent during many of the earlier meetings focused on the property. She said that people who spoke about preserving the land were cut off, and that very early on the consultants steered the discussion toward building a housing development. 

“I don’t see this as turning your back on housing,” Greiser said. “It’s embracing something special and unique… Once it’s gone, it’s gone.”

She also suggested that town officials include a question on the ballot for the upcoming November election, asking residents if they want to use the property for housing or preserve it as open space. 

You should make that an option, Greiser said. 

Vanessa Sheehan said the consultant that had been hired during the initial planning phase was not considerate of the neighbors’ opinions. She said people voted to preserve the building as a means of slowing down the development process. Sheehan was also concerned about the asbestos remediation should the monastery building ever be demolished. She said that process would need to be done carefully so that the asbestos does not net into the surrounding neighborhood, nearby Narragansett Bay and the rest of the environment. 

Amy Nunn praised town officials for their continued work on the matter. She also thanked officials for putting conservation back into the conversation. Nunn said she has a lot of experience writing grants and would be happy to assist the town in finding and securing grants to help off-set costs associated with preserving the property. 

Deb Nyser said she had a real problem with the planning process up to this point. She said the town did not bring forth a clear plan before it asked residents to vote on the purchase of the property. Nyser said there has not seen any public support for building a high-density development on the property. She also said the push for a high-density development would disrupt the lives of many people who live here to benefit a very few who do not live here yet.

Ann Strong said she believes the monastery property should preserved as open space. She also said she had been involved in previous efforts to preserve open space in Barrington — she spoke about the woods located behind Shaw’s Supermarket and the Vitullo property (or “Weymoth gardens” as she called it) located off the Wampanoag Trail.

Strong also said selling off single family lots on the property does not guarantee that a builder wouldn’t subdivide those lots and create denser housing. 

Gerald Diebold spoke about how officials first created the East Bay Bike Path and now it is enjoyed by many people. He said turning the monastery property into a park could create a space even more spectacular than the bike path. Diebold also suggested that the conservation question be added as a ballot question. 

Jason Phillips spoke about possibly turning the monastery building into housing for veterans. He said there were many grants available to assist the town in that process. He also referenced renowned architects and designers who could help create new plans for the building. 

Michelle Turgeon said preserving the property as open space would serve to benefit children. She said she hopes a conservation plan is pushed forward. 

Dave Butera spoke about the old Jones’ Rose Garden on Nayatt Road, which had been lost to development years ago. He said officials had an opportunity to not repeat that mistake. 

Only one resident spoke in favor of selling off the property as house lots and collecting some tax revenue. Tom Rimoshytus also said there had been a lot of conflicting information about the plans. 

In the end, Kustell said there appeared to be a consensus among Council members to push off the decision until the fall when officials are expecting to have a special financial town meeting. 

In the meantime, Councilors tasked town administrators with preparing an FAQ (frequently asked questions) about the monastery property.