To the editor:
I’m writing to thank you for bringing attention to the Monastery plans and upcoming public meetings. I also want to sound loud alarm bells for Barrington residents. Although …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continue |
Register to post eventsIf you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here. Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content. |
Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.
To the editor:
I’m writing to thank you for bringing attention to the Monastery plans and upcoming public meetings. I also want to sound loud alarm bells for Barrington residents. Although this is impacting my neighborhood today, other neighborhoods could be next.
The current proposals being railroaded through do not remotely resemble ANY of the initial designs or proposals put to Barrington residents during the Ad Hoc Committee process. The plans are not remotely aligned in any way to the spirit of the original motion to purchase the property which promised to put control in the hands of the Barrington community. The plans they will ask us to approve are designed by consultants to provide profits to developers and upend the fabric of our neighborhood, period.
The design proposals include a Frankenstein plan for 53 units on 4.8 acres (Land Use 2)!! That is way out of proportion to the surrounding area and the Memorandum supporting these plans clearly shows that the literal bottom line is profit, supported by density greater than other Barrington neighborhoods and greater than anything the residents were shown previously.
Why did we spend so much money on consultants that are looking for the best deal for developers? Why didn’t the consultants explore ways to achieve our original mission of low-density senior housing? Why didn’t they research ways to find funding with land grants, working with Barrington Land Conservation, and private/public partnerships. They didn’t even look.
Throughout the Ad Hoc Committee process Barrington residents provided a clear and consistent message that the town should maintain the building, maintain low-density, and leave ample green space for everyone’s use. It was a shock that the Ad Hoc committee was terminated; it felt abrupt, premature, and a way to prevent further input from residents in the direction of the plan proposals. Additionally, we have seen that speaking at public meetings (when we are allowed to) isn’t the same thing as representation and participation.
The upcoming public meetings on March 28 and April 26 are opportunities for Barrington residents to voice their concerns with this dense development and stop this consultant-driven process. There is a better plan for this unique property.
Sincerely,
Paige Barbour
Barrington