|
Narr. Board recommends appeal of state housing decision |
|
Thursday, 09 July 2009 |
Planning Board votes 4-0 to advise that SHAB
decision be appealed.
By SARAH TRAVER
NARRAGANSETT- The Planning Board held a special meeting Friday afternoon to discuss the Atlantic East affordable housing complex decision that was turned down a year ago but overturned by the Rhode Island State Housing Appeals Board (SHAB).
The board turned down the decision last June in a 3-2 vote, the main reason being that the project be more “integrated”, which is an affordable housing requirement. SHAB overturned their decision on June 24 of this year stating the project could now move forward.
Chairman Terrance Fleming said he called the meeting because he felt the need for the board to weigh in on this matter before the Town Council discusses it in Executive Session at Monday night’s meeting, due to it being a matter of litigation. The town can either accept the decision or choose to appeal.
Director of Community Planning Michael DeLuca said he felt the council just wanted to get up to speed on the issue and probably wouldn’t decide anything in their session. Once the official letter is sent to the town, which has not happened as of Friday, the town will be given 20 days to file an appeal against the overturned verdict from SHAB.
The public may speak at the council meeting at the open forum to voice their concerns and opinions Fleming said. Council members Christopher Wilkens, Alisa Trainor Fleet and President David Crook were in attendance.
Board member Steven Glazer attended the SHAB meeting when the verdict was handed down. He said it was an interesting situation and he said he sensed SHAB felt Narragansett wasn’t making enough of an effort for affordable housing.
“This decision is a first time decision on a topic that is of interest to every town and every affordable housing ordinance in the state. What does integration mean? The bottom line is there were no case laws on integration in this or any legislation and it fell to the dictionary,” Glazer said.
Glazer said the board takes these matters very seriously and they try very hard to do the right thing. He asked that people bare with them while they “walk the tightrope”.
“By taking on this appeal we will basically be writing the law. This is the perfect opportunity to define what integration really means,” Glazer said if the town takes on the appeal.
Board member Dr. Joseph O’Neill said the Planning Board had spent hours suffering and working over their decision, discussing integration over and over with no specific guidelines. “If we don’t do something in a legal sense then why spend hours wrestling with this project? I think this is a pivotal thing here,” O’Neill said.
“If we don’t stand up for ourselves why do we even bother?,” Glazer said voicing his feelings on going forward with the appeal.
Fleming strongly stated that he wanted to see the town support the board and see it through no matter what decision was made. “I want the town to defend the board’s decision regardless of whether we approve or deny the decision and back the board,” Fleming said.
Community members and abutters to the property voiced their concerns at the meeting, all urging the board to recommend appealing the decision to the town council.
“I think this is very, very important to be appealed. Right now we have a statewide bully telling us we have a box called Narragansett where you can fit so many people and we want you to fit in a lot more people. I think standing up against that bully is the right thing to do. I think SHAB is reckless and ignorant of the particulars of Narragansett,” Tim Faraone, a concerned community member, said.
“I think you need to defend your turf and the reason for your existence. You have an obligation to the abutters as well,” said neighbor Bill Falk. Fleming asserted that the public needs to inform the council of their concerns.
DeLuca expressed his feelings on how proud he is in the way the board addresses difficult applications and makes such an effort to go through all the details.
Sue Bush expressed her concerns with the affordable housing definition. She alsothought the board should move to have the decision appealed.
“I think we should appeal this to get to the root of the problem, the integration of the units. There is nothing written and no definition. If by appealing this process it will get to the root of the problem that is the key. Unless you have a written policy on integration, it will only come up again,” said Joan Garceau, a community member.
“It just amazes me that they (SHAB) don’t see how much we are trying to comply,” said Councilwoman Fleet.
The board unanimously voted 4-0 to urge the council to go forward with appealing SHAB’s decision.
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 04 September 2009 )
|
