.

Potential Buyers Balk At Price To Save Boston Neck Rd. Farmhouse

They say it would cost more than $750,000 to convert the long-neglected building into a duplex as part of the proposed 7-unit Stonecroft at Wickford Village development.

The historic house at 175 Boston Neck Road, the lynch-pin for a 7-unit development.
The historic house at 175 Boston Neck Road, the lynch-pin for a 7-unit development.

Potential developers of Stonecroft at Wickford Village, a small subdivision proposed for 173 Boston Neck Road, told the Planning Commission last week it was impossible economically to restore the 18th century farmhouse in the center of the property into an affordable housing duplex. The original plan had the converted farmhouse ringed by five houses to be sold at market prices.

Robert Carr and Alex Petrucci are considering buying the property, which is just south of Beach Road, from Richard Fryburg, who originally proposed the Stonecroft development. They were before the Planning Commission for the second time in two weeks, this time with rough estimates of what it would cost to make the farmhouse structurally sound. They hoped to be able to convince the commission to be able to amend the plan.

Various commission members, however, alternatively doubted the $750,000 number; questioned whether the project as originally conceived seven years ago could go forward if the farmhouse was not saved; and suggested the house be torn down and rebuilt to mirror the old structure.

It was commission member Michael Annarummo who questioned the validity of the $750,000 estimate, suggesting the potential buyers were just back before the commission with “old wine in new bottles.”

“Any normal person who is not in this business went in there would say, get a match,” Carr countered. “This building will NOT be saved.”

Petrucci, who developed South County Commons among other properties, said the drop in property values in recent years made the plan to restore the farmhouse as originally conceived unworkable today.

Commission members pointed out financial viability was not in their charge. Rather, they had approved a project based on one scenario. If that were to be altered, then developers would have to start over.

“My hangup is, we granted specific benefits to a previous applicant, and what we have now is, ‘We’d like the benefits, but we don’t want any of the drawbacks,’” said Commission Chair Gardner Palmer, voicing what he felt the potential buyers were saying.

By state statute, affordable housing units must appear from the outside to be  indistinguishable from other housing units in a development. The Planning Commission originally approved Stonecroft at Wickford Village with two affordable units – in the form of the farmhouse-turned-duplex – which would look different from the five single-family units surrounding it.

“If you were to build a new building there … the reason they allowed the density at that time was because they were using an existing historic building for the affordable units,” said the Planning Department’s Nicole LaFontaine. “That fact that the structure was there allowed them to put the duplex in that structure.”

Commission member Jim Grundy, who was on the commission for the earlier vote, said he would never have approved the application with a duplex if not for the farmhouse.

Another suggestion came from commission member Harriet Powell, who said perhaps the building could be demolished and recreated new, thus maintaining the historic look but at a price that was more palatable to developers. She said she would want to hear from an historic preservationist before taking such a vote.
Politics Sheriff of NK August 26, 2013 at 04:51 AM
ahh Harriett Powell, Carol Huestons mother. Lets see, she was on TV once... where was that, ah yes. here it is! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLK2mhJQ7Zo
Steve Sironen August 26, 2013 at 08:34 AM
@PS,the link didn't work. Is there a title on the video?
Donna Ferris August 26, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Just enter rLK2mhJQ7Zo on the youtube search, it will bring you to the video!!
Steve Sironen August 26, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Just watched it....I remember now! Hah.
Elizabeth McNamara (Editor) August 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM
Please keep comments on the topic of this particular article.
Elizabeth McNamara (Editor) August 26, 2013 at 01:41 PM
Sheriff: yes, I do consider all of it off topic. It is a privilege – not a right – to post on NK Patch.
Steve Sironen August 26, 2013 at 02:02 PM
Wait- so you just go around to all the articles and delete posts if they don't pertain exactly to the content of the article? And now it's a "privilege " to post on here? I'm confused. The Patch is becoming to controlling. I'm done with it I think.
believeno1 August 26, 2013 at 02:50 PM
The Independent and Standard are far more informative anyways. The patch is never on top and up to date on hands down the most pressing and important topic going on in town which is the public safety battle.
believeno1 August 26, 2013 at 02:53 PM
Strange that there hasn't been any media coverage regarding fire apparatus having to be placed out of service because there are not enough firefighters to man them. Our Fire Department is a shambles, and our fire safety is in jeopardy in North Kingstown, and we hear only crickets about it but let's hear about used cars for sale, million dollar homes on the market, and dog parks
Ed Renehan August 26, 2013 at 03:19 PM
Patch is privately held by AOL. Publishing comments on Patch is therefore a privilege granted at the discretion of AOL, and not an inalienable right. The editor and/or publisher can and should set any rules they'd care to lay down for comments. If that is seen by some as being "to" controlling, then so be it. Steve, you're lucky they don't delete for grammatical errors. Or would that be TOO controlling as well?
Steve Sironen August 26, 2013 at 03:29 PM
Sorry, Ed. Sometimes I'm at the liberty of a faulty keyboard.
Elizabeth McNamara (Editor) August 26, 2013 at 03:45 PM
Hi again. To be clear, you are all welcome to blog on NK Patch on pretty much whatever topic suits your fancy. The comments section is meant to carry forward the topic of the article it follows. So, if you want to talk about political shenanigans, go for it – in a blog post. Or, when the topic of the article warrants it. And, I'm painfully aware that there are MANY MANY stories I'm not able to get to. I encourage anyone with a story to send me an email (elizabeth.mcnamara@patch.com) or give me a call (401-924-4233). Thanks.
Politics Sheriff of NK August 26, 2013 at 07:14 PM
Elizabeth thank you for the reply and explaining where you are coming from. Here is my take - When you delete posts related to the background of pols making decisions, then the damage is to the collective psyche and it impinges the public right to know the big picture. If you consider REAL malfeasance with REAL victims to be "shenanigans" then I really dont know what I can say. I appreciate your invitation to speak on "political shenanigans" at least somewhere but it is not the same as reminding the folks interested in a Planning Commission action just exactly who the Planning Commission is made up of. To me that is relevant, to you it is irrelevant "political shenanigans" so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think I am done too, with Patch pretty much, like so many others (who used to post a lot).
jay b September 07, 2013 at 01:52 AM
Is it just me, or does the air seem a bit cleaner since PSoNK decided to leave?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »