It fails the eyeball test.
One look at the development plans proposed for the former Carmelite monastery property tells you plenty — too many houses on not enough land.
The …
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.
It fails the eyeball test.
One look at the development plans proposed for the former Carmelite monastery property tells you plenty — too many houses on not enough land.
The town and its consultant recently shared sketches for the proposed development. There is one plan that calls for the monastery building to be razed and another that preserves the building, but both plans feature dozens of new housing units. Compared to the immediate surrounding neighborhood, both development plans appear way too dense.
Just take a look at the sketch.
The “proposed concept plan” shows 36 units (22 cottage units and 14 single-family units) on less than five acres of land. The “alternate concept plan” shows 31 units (17 cottage units and 14 single-family units) on the same space. It also includes the existing monastery building, although officials said the structure would just remain as an empty shell.
Both sketches show too many houses and not enough green space. It’s just that simple.
The list of people who oppose both plans continues to grow, and the comments shared by those who would be impacted most are worth heeding:
“The Town’s current options have one common theme: transform our quiet, friendly neighborhood, where kids can play in the streets and people come to walk and bicycle, into a high density housing area with lots of new traffic.”
“There are other creative ideas that could make this property financially viable. The town doesn't care, they want this put to bed regardless of what it means for the community.”
“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.”