Paige Barbour was hoping the town’s FAQ (frequently asked questions) about the former Carmelite monastery property would clear up some of the uncertainty about the seven-acre parcel located on Watson Avenue. 

Instead, the document has raised additional concerns from the Barrington resident. 

Barbour, whose May 2 letter to town officials helped spur the FAQ, had no idea where some questions came from, and she also challenged some of the information provided. 

For example, the FAQ includes the question: “The Barrington Comprehensive Town Plan stipulates that zoning should be compatible with existing neighborhoods to ‘better reflect an area’s character’. Why is the Town Manager continuing to pursue development with a density (24 units) greater than the surrounding area?”

The FAQ response states: “As part of the planning process for this site, the Town’s architectural consultant developed a floor plan illustrating the conversion of the existing building, without any additions, into 24 apartments. Voters have supported keeping and repurposing this building, though this type of structure is not permitted under the current R40 zoning in place for this site. Therefore, a new zone would be required to convert the building to a new use. However, a financial feasibility analysis developed by the consultant determined that keeping the building is not feasible due to the high cost of converting the building to individual residential units and the projected income generated by the apartments.”

Barbour called the response “dumb.” 

“It seems that they are trying to equate the idea of creating 24 units INSIDE the monastery with developing 24 houses on the property,” Barbour wrote in an email to the Barrington Times. “Also, although 24 units is certainly less than the 53 that 4ward Planning recommended, it is still much greater than the existing neighborhood.”

Town officials drafted the document with input from the solicitor. Members of the Barrington Town Council briefly discussed the FAQs during the June meeting — they mostly spoke about where to find the document online. 

Barbour was hoping officials would include a question about the former Zion Bible College property: “…why not wait until the Belton Court property plans are known before developing plans for 25 Watson?” Barbour wrote. 

“This really is a key question, in my mind, as the Belton Court property is HUGE and one of the latest plans is for a 350-unit development. Do we really need 25 Watson as senior or affordable housing at all with this massive project just up the street?”

In her May 2 letter, Barbour asked about the monastery property and whether it could become open space. She suggested that the Town Council form a new ad hoc committee to explore the possibility. She believes the committee could include members of the Barrington Land Conservation, bike and pedestrian committee, open space committee, landscape architects, grant writers, Save The Bay, shell fishermen, and others.

“This would be a wonderful collaborative endeavor and would likely come up with reasonable solutions if this land or part of it can remain undeveloped,” she wrote.  

The FAQ includes a question directed at using the property as open space: “The surveys conducted by the town found that residents prefer to maintain green space rather than support housing. Why is there so much focus on more development? If town residents vote to demolish the monastery, could the town preserve the open land for public use through a trust or non-profit organization for conservation purposes?”

The response states that an online survey showed support of green space, as well as other ideas such as a sports complex, affordable housing, senior housing, a community center, senior center, a town park, a nursing home, a school, etc. 

“A vote of the Town Council would be required to keep the site as undeveloped open space, and dedicated funding allocated for maintenance and security of the site for use as public open space. The initial cost of acquiring the property would also make it extremely expensive for open space,” stated the response. 

Barbour believes the town’s response ignored the option of working with non-profits or acquiring grants to off-set any town-incurred costs for keeping the property as open space. 

The FAQ also touched on the preservation of the monastery building. 

“Given that voters voted to preserve the monastery twice, has there been an architectural/engineering feasibility study about other uses for the Monastery, or parts of it (the chapel for example), if not housing? Might the town at least consider partial preservation of the monastery?” 

The response: “The building has multiple issues making repurposing the building very expensive. Many of the interior rooms are small; the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems would all need to be reworked throughout the building; the elevator is non-compliant and in need of replacement; all the windows require replacement. The Town’s architectural consultant determined the structure of the chapel is integrated in the main building itself. This condition makes it very difficult to leave the chapel structure intact while demolishing the remainder of the structure.”

Barbour found the FAQ response lacking: “The gist of the answer given is that ANY repurposing of the monastery will be too expensive to do. However, they don’t indicate whether it’s possible to repurpose if someone wanted to and they didn’t compare the cost of adaptive re-use with the cost of demolition which would certainly have to be included in any development on that property.”

Next step

Members of the Town Council agreed to continue the discussion about the monastery property at their next meeting.