To the editor: From the outset of the Application of the EBCDC for a Comprehensive Permit concerning the proposed “Palmer Pointe” development there was speculation, both in and out of government circles, that because the town had lost the “Sweetbriar“ case the same fate would automatically befall the “Palmer Pointe” proposal.  That’s not how it works.

When a court accepts a case for decision it reviews both the law and facts applicable to the specific case before it. In that process the court also looks at other past court decisions, including its own, to determine if the law and facts of those cases can be considered precedents relative to the case being decided.

The facts in “Palmer Pointe” differ radically from those in “Sweetbriar” to the point of rendering inapplicable the use of “Sweetbriar” as precedent for the proposed “Palmer Pointe” development plan. Consider the following:

1.  In Sweetbriar the area of developable land consisted of 8.4 acres with 47 rental units (6 units/acre).

“Palmer “Pointe” is now being considered for 42 units on 5.64 acres. (7.5 units/acre)

2.  In Sweetbriar approximately 90% of the development property was zoned for “Business” while the remaining lots were zoned “Neighborhood Business.”

In “Palmer Pointe” the zoning district is zoned exclusively for residential homes in an R-25 zone district (2 Units per acre)

3.  In Sweetbriar the “neighborhood Business zone “allowed” elderly housing, but the court was unclear as to why the property, as zoned, would be suitable for “elderly housing” and not “non-elderly” housing.

In Palmer Pointe the entire zone district is restricted to single family residential homes in an R25 zone (2 units/acre)

4.  In Sweetbriar the town residential use regulation permitted two family dwellings in districts zoned “Neighborhood Business.”

In Palmer Pointe there is no “Business” designation of any kind.

5.  In Sweetbriar the entire construction site “remained vacant for three decades”.

In Palmer Pointe the Sowams Nursery zoning district was a functional vegetative nursery from 1959 to 2014. During that time there were, and still are, two residential houses on the property.

6.  The Bay Spring area, where Sweetbriar is located, was (and still is) described in Barrington Town Ordinance 185-27 as: “a combined zoning district whose developed areas consist primarily of R-10, Neighborhood Business, Business, and Limited Manufacturing Districts.”

Also at 185-27, the Hampden Meadows, which includes the Sowams Nursery,  is described as “ a heavily developed residential district where development has resulted in costly expansions to both elementary schools, Hampden Meadows and Sowams, and an increase in traffic on the road system, making them inadequate to service the dense population therein. Likewise this district is in need of preserving what little unprotected open space is left. It is also environmentally sensitive in the portions adjacent to the Barrington River, Hundred Acre Cove and the Palmer River….”

7.  There is no body of water, ecologically sensitive or otherwise, mentioned in the Sweetbriar case, and in fact none existed then or exists today. The Palmer Pointe property abuts the Palmer River and “likely” contains contaminants in the soil (as discussed in a prior letter).

8.  Not specifically mentioned in the Court’s decision are the facts that the neighborhood in which “Sweetbriar” was developed also contained, and contains today, condominiums, light and heavy industry, and office buildings. None of these features are present in the proposed “Palmer Point” development.

9.  The court in Sweetbriar stated that “The housing element also included the results of a questionnaires to residents of the town, indicating that residents were amicable to affordable housing in the form of duplexes or triplexes that resembled single family homes”.

At one of the early public meetings of the Planning Board concerning the “Palmer Pointe” application CODDER 02806 presented to the board, on the record, petitions containing the signatures of 527 Hampden Meadows residents in opposition to the proposed construction.

10. In Sweetbriar the court discounted the traffic argument, since, apparently, there was little valuable highly probative evidence concerning traffic except for the fact that there was no access to major highways. Studies and opinions primarily involved the Traffic on Washington Road and Bay Spring Avenue. The focus of interest appears to have revolved around additional traffic generated by the number of accidents in the area, and the number of “extra trips” generated (29-38) caused by the proposed construction during peak hours.

Letters we have provided the Planning Board discuss the traffic conditions surrounding the Sowams Nursery, with emphasis on the intersections between County Road and Sowams and New Meadow Roads including the inevitable traffic that will be generated by the “Samsonite” construction. Added to this is a resumption of the traffic generated by cut-through vehicles over the White Church Bridge to Massasoit connecting to Sowams and New Meadow Roads, primarily during rush hours causing further congestion at the intersections with County Road.

We are confident that a thorough and impartial study, prescribed by the Planning Board, will support a conclusion that the existing traffic situation militates against the imposition of substantial additional traffic resulting from a 42 unit apartment complex on Sowams Road where the existing traffic is already perilous.

If any member of the Planning Board would like a copy of the “Sweetbriar decision please let us know.

Kevin Doyle

Barrington

Les Costa

Barrington

William LeMoult

Barrington