First Step in Appeal of Nockum Hill Condos Goes Developer's Way

No “intervention” by abutters or opponents will be allowed in the appeal of the Barrington Planning Board’s rejection of the proposed condominium development at Nockum Hill.

The State Housing Appeals Board made that ruling Wednesday afternoon on the appeal for "Residences at the Preserve," a development of 24 condos – up to 8 of them as affordable housing -- proposed for a former horse paddock that abuts farmland and lies just east of the Doug Rayner Wildlife Refuge.

In short, the ruling means that the abutters to the property on George Street, the Barrington Land Conservation Trust, and the Barrington Preservation Society have had their say and will have to rely on Barrington’s assistant solicitor to stave off a possible reversal of the planning board’s decision.

To put that another way, the appeals board will use only the existing record of the case and legal briefs to be filed based on that record of the case from the planning board to make their decision. 

Andrew Teitz, Barrington’s assistant solicitor, and William Landry, the attorney for the developer, North End Holdings, now have 45 days to submit briefs. SHAB will then review the briefs and the existing record before reconvening to make a decision.

A full-fledged hearing on the appeal probably won’t occur before early fall.

Teitz and Landry both stated their cases for and against additional intervention. Based on the ruling, Landry left the conference room in the Department of Administration building in Providence with a victory.

“Abutters have to demonstrate that their property would be injured" to be given intervention status at this point, said Landry. 

“People have the right to intervene if their property interests will be effected,” said Teitz.

He also argued that he could not adequately represent all of the abutters’ interests, particularly if at some point down the road Barrington decided it wants to settle with North End Holdings and allow some type of development at that location.

Representatives of the land trust, which has a permanent easement to protect the environment, and the preservation society, which says the site has significant historic value, also argued that their interests in keeping a high-density condo complex out of the town’s last rural are different than the abutters. 

Two of the abutters, Christopher Clegg, an owner of Four Town Farm, which farms 10 acres adjacent to the proposed development, and Jason Lawrence, who recently bought the historic Allen-West property across the street from the proposed development, also said they would get their own attorneys if the board ruled they could be intervenors. 

All of their arguments fell on deaf ears for the most part. SHAB rejected their requests for intervention status almost unanimously. 

“I believe Mr. Teitz can adequately represent all of their interests,” said Kelly Morris, chair of SHAB. “I hate to see everyone getting an attorney, especially since they can’t add and we can’t accept new evidence.” 

“I don’t see intervention in this matter,” she said.

One SHAB member, Steve Stycos, did not agree entirely. He asked specifically that Four Town Farm be given intervenor status. But his motion failed by a 5-1 vote. 

Steve Richard, the legal counsel to SHAB, suggested that the board vote on each request to intervene individually. They did and defeated all but one request unanimously.

Denial of the project last fall was based “on the Planning Board’s determination that the proposal’s density, design and location conflict with multiple goals, policies and strategies of the Affordable Housing Plan and the Comprehensive Community Plan, and raise concerns about its potential impact on the environment and health and safety.”