Annelise Conway walked out of the Barrington Town Council meeting on Wednesday night, Aug. 30, feeling frustrated.

A few minutes before the meeting adjourned, Conway made a motion to have the town administration explore potential grants that could be used to off-set the costs associated with preserving portions of the monastery property as open space. 

Conway said it was important for the town to do its due diligence and explore all its options with the seven acres of land that overlook Narragansett Bay. For a long time, officials have been focused on using the property for housing. Recently, the Planning Board recommended a development plan for the town-owned parcel that calls for six single family homes and a pocket neighborhood with 10 to 12 cottages. 

But Conway said the property could be used for other purposes, and promoted the idea of exploring possible grants. 

Her motion failed, however. 

Conway and Braxton Cloutier voted in favor of the motion, while Rob Humm and Carl Kustell voted against it. (Humm had initially seconded the motion before deciding to vote against it.) 

“I think it’s a disappointment,” Conway said, standing outside the middle school on Wednesday night. “I think we have a responsibility to explore all of the options. Housing was not the only option that was provided. It was not the only option during the ad hoc meetings. We talked about recreation centers. We’ve talked about fields. We’re looking for open space. The Conservation Commission talked about how to preserve the tree canopy…”

During the meeting, Barrington resident Blaise Rein addressed the Council — he and others had identified potential grants totaling more than $25 million. The town spent $3.2 million for the property and officials have cited $309,000 annual carrying costs. 

Rein said certain voices in the community have advocated for the land to be used for housing. He said other voices in the community have not been heard. 

A short time later, Conway said she would the town to explore the potential grants. She then made her motion.

Kustell pushed back. He said that open space grants are typically geared toward purchasing property. He said that was what the solicitor’s office advised. But a moment later, assistant solicitor Amy Goins said that using grants to preserve property that was already owned by the town was not “legally impossible.”

Kustell said he was worried about the time it would take to research the potential grants. Conway countered, stating that it would take only a few months and there was still a lot of work to be done before a developer could begin constructing homes on the property. 

Kustell said he opposed the motion because he believed the initial FTM vote to purchase the property was done so with a clear directive to use some of the property for affordable and senior housing. Again Conway differed. She said the minutes from the 2021 FTM vote to purchase the land did not specify that the property be used for housing. Kustell did not agree and the two Councilors spent some time going back and forth on that issue. 

Humm said he did not want to overburden town administration with the work needed to research the grants. Barrington Town Manager Phil Hervey, who supports using the majority of the property for housing, said reviewing the grants would take some time. He said staff members did not have much bandwidth for the work. 

There was also a question about the timing of the request, but Conway said town administration had been aware of the grants research request for months. 

In early May, Conway emailed with residents who had done some preliminary research into possible grants. The residents, Amy Nunn and Blaise Rein, were happy to share the list of grants, which included one from the Champlin Foundation that they thought might help pay for the demolition of the monastery building. 

In June, Rein shared a spreadsheet of the grants in an email and offered that he and other residents would be happy to “help write the applications if any are selected to pursue.” 

In late July, he sent another email to town officials. 

“I just wanted to check in to see if anyone from the Town has been able to take a look at the grants,” he wrote. “As mentioned in previous meetings, we have some great human capital in town and some capacity for grant writing. We would be happy to begin writing draft applications for review to help conserve some or all of the Watson property while reducing the financial impact on the town.”

On Aug. 1, Hervey wrote back, stating that the request to evaluate grant programs would need to be added to a Council agenda before officials devoted staff resources toward the effort. 

Later that day Conway responded to the group email, which also included Kustell. She wrote that she was disappointed that there had not been movement forward on the grants. She suggested that the Open Space Committee could help with the research.

“I have high hopes for what we can do for the town with the property, but I fear we are being pigeonholed by a process that is weighted towards housing - resulting in a minimal if flat increase in our affordable housing stock,” Conway wrote. “At worst, we have disenchanted and, frankly, disenfranchised, members of the community who would like the council to make educated decisions on the possibilities for the property.”

Following Wednesday night’s meeting and her unsuccessful motion, Conway voiced some frustrations. 

“If the driver of this is the financial feasibility, which it was to not preserve the (monastery) building, then the least we can do is look for private funding that’s going to preserve the open space, and I think that’s what we have a responsibility to do,” Conway said.