Richmond Planning Board Meeting for February 28th 2023

By Cynthia Drummond for BRVCA
March 1st, 2023

RICHMOND – A public informational meeting on an application for a housing subdivision and vineyard was continued at Tuesday’s Planning Board meeting at the request of the developer.

Attorney Steven Surdut, representing the Punchbowl Development Corp. of Westerly, requested the continuance to allow his client to address concerns expressed by board members when they first heard the application last June.

Surdut said he would be ready to present the amended application at the board‘s second March meeting.

A site walk, which gave board members an opportunity to visit the property, took place on Feb. 18, but Surdut offered to organize a second site walk for recently - appointed members who have not visited the 9.47-acre site.

One of those new members, Daniel Ashworth, who was appointed at the last Town Council meeting, did not attend Tuesday’s Planning Board meeting, which would have been his first. Ashworth, a Pawtucket police sergeant, was working on Tuesday evening.

The second newly-appointed member, Kevin Stacey, was present at Tuesday’s meeting.

Housing Survey

Board members resumed their discussion, which began at the Jan. 10 meeting, of affordable housing and accessory dwelling units.

Town Planner Shaun Lacey recalled that at the January meeting, the board had learned of a housing survey of residents of the town of Old Saybrook, Connecticut.

“The board wanted to see other examples from other communities that have done similar surveying of its residents to gain more public opinion and understanding of what their housing goals and needs might be,” he said. “So, working with Bryce [board member Bryce Kelley] included with your packet materials tonight are two surveys on housing, from the towns of Little Compton and Warren, for you to review and consider.”

Lacey proposed that the board work with the town’s Affordable Housing Committee to draft a survey.

Board Vice President Dan Madnick said he favored a joint workshop, which would help determine the parameters and goals of the survey.

“What we really have to try to figure out in all these surveys is, how narrow or how broad we want to have this survey and what our goals are,” he said. “We’ve got the data. We’ve got very little rentals in Richmond, very little deeded affordable housing.”

Kelley, a research analyst at HousingWorks RI who also serves as the Planning Board’s liaison on the Affordable Housing Committee, proposed that the survey be framed as a housing needs survey.

“Getting a sense of what Richmond residents’ needs are in this day and age, as it pertains to housing, without drilling as deeply into deed restricted affordable housing,” he said.

It would be useful, Kelley added, to determine which Richmond residents are facing housing issues

“Are older adults experiencing housing trouble? Are kids having to leave because they can’t afford housing and there’s no rental stock? So, we really need to drill into those pockets,” he said.

Members then began a discussion of an issue that has vexed Richmond leaders for many years: creating more affordable housing in a rural town that lacks many municipal services, including public transportation.

Madnick wondered how the town could encourage the construction of more affordable housing.

“I’m not sure how we’re going to be able to guide development in that direction, or what mechanisms we have to do that,” he said.

Board President Philip Damicis said ordinances could be amended to encourage affordable housing construction.

“We have ordinances, regulations that we could change to incentivize people to develop differently,” he said.

But Damicis also made it clear that he would resist any initiatives that would alter Richmond’s rural character.

“Honestly, there’s a lot of people like myself that live in Richmond because we don’t want to live in North Kingstown,” he said. “I want to live in a rural area. I like the idea that I’ve got some acreage. I like the idea that we have 2,000 acres of open space. That’s why I moved here. That’s why I stayed here.”

Also attending the meeting was Town Council member Michael Colasante, who expressed his views on the housing issues facing the town. Each of Colasante’s assertions, however, was disputed by board members and Town Solicitor Karen Ellsworth.

Consulting what appeared to be notes on his cell phone, Colasante said he had recently spoken with Paul Mihailides, the developer of the Preserve at Boulder Hills who also built the Fox Run condominiums on Jupiter Lane.

“There were two units put aside, and Paul mentioned to me not too long ago that there were people who didn’t even fit the income value to buy those units, and they were empty, the last time I talked to him about those low to moderate income units, and on top of that, not only were they not filled, bought, what ended up happening is, I don’t know if many people know this, but say, hypothetically, they were to buy that unit at $210,000, they cannot ever reap the benefit of the property value going up, so if they buy it for $210,000, if they live there for 10 years, they have to sell it for $210,000,” he said.

Ellsworth was quick to correct him.

“Mike, that’s not correct,” she said. “It doesn’t stay at the original price.”

“Well,” Colasante replied, “it doesn’t go up proportionately… A lot of times, those people are kind of stuck there.”

Kelley joined the discussion.

“That’s not really the spirit of those units, to make a windfall,” he said. “It’s giving those people who are in those income brackets the opportunity to own a home. I don’t think it’s necessarily directed at building wealth at the same appreciative value as the neighbors, per se. I think it’s to discourage flipping.”

Ellsworth said the the Fox Run units didn’t sell because the asking prices were too high.

“The problem is that Paul had priced them at the higher end of what he can charge, based on family incomes,” she said. “And people who are eligible to buy those are not going to buy those units when they can spend a little bit more and get a unit that’s not deed restricted. And Paul knows that’s what the problem is.”

Colasante then turned his attention to open space.

“We’re talking about affordable units and what not and not having enough units, another thing too is the Land Trust, they have over 12,000 acres in Richmond that is put aside,” he said.

This time, it was Madnick who pointed out the inaccuracy.

“The Richmond Rural Preservation Land Trust, the board of the town, they have less than 600 acres,” he said.

Colasante replied that 12 housing units had been proposed for a property behind his house until the Land Trust swooped in a bought it.

“They went out and they bonded for $1.2 million to buy land in Richmond,” he said. “They took it off the tax roll, so those [sic]10 or 12 cluster development behind me never came to fruition because they bought it.”

Ellsworth again stepped in with a correction.

“Mike, that’s not what happened with that development,” she said, noting that the developers realized they would not be able to afford to develop the property, so they asked the Land Trust to purchase it.

“What’s your point?” an irritated Damicis asked Colasante.

“Well, they took 12 units off the tax roll here,” he said. “We’re talking about not having enough units here in Richmond for people to be able to come in here and buy, and another thing, when your cluster developments…”

Damicis broke in.

“I don’t want to sit and argue all night about this, but that 100 acres pretty much abuts De Coppet, [the estate now owned and preserved as green space by the state]. It’s a crucial conservation open space and it’s what we keep hearing overwhelmingly from the community here is that they … love the rural character of this town, and they value open space. They value conservation,” he said.

Colasante continued to argue his point, proposing a zoning policy that fell out of favor about 20 years ago.

“Instead of doing the cluster, you do the two acres, two and a half acres, that way, out of the whole development, the town would have garnished [sic] at least another $30,000 to $50,000 in property values and just because that house is a three bedroom compared to a two bedroom, it would just put the same amount of kids in the school system…”

Kelley broke in,

“That’s sprawl you’re dealing with as well, though,” he said. We want to limit sprawl as much as possible.”

Ellsworth added

“That two-acre zoning, we don’t allow anymore,” she said. “We don’t allow people to develop like that anymore. We do conservation developments.”

As Colasante continued to speak, Damicis interrupted him with a suggestion that he talk with Lacey about conservation development subdivisions and why the town encourages them.

“There’s a lot more to that that I think you’re not understanding, quite honestly,” he told Colasante, before ending the discussion.