Council reviews feasibility plan to convert Odd Fellows Hall and Fire Barn into senior center and four housing units; approves capital needs assessment funding

The Little Compton Town Council on an agenda item labeled "Old Business" reviewed a feasibility study recommending reuse of the Odd Fellows Hall (32 Commons) and the Fire Barn (30 Commons) for a combined senior center and up to four senior affordable housing units, and approved up to $3,500 to pay for a capital needs assessment to refine costs and scope.

The study presented by Melissa Hutchinson, the project architect, described the two buildings as historically used for community purposes and generally adaptable but carrying multiple deficiencies. "In general, the building is in very good condition and could easily be adaptively reused as something else," Hutchinson said of the Fire Barn, but she identified missing siding, rotted shakes, narrow doors and broken windows as repair items. Hutchinson described the Odd Fellows Hall as a two‑story wood‑frame building with more architectural character but with key life‑safety needs: the elevator is undersized and the building requires a full sprinkler system for assembly occupancy.

A fire board variance granted in November requires the town to return to the fire board with a plan of action by April; until a sprinkler system or an approved alternative is installed, the Odd Fellows second‑floor assembly space must remain closed. Ray Gomes, the town’s fire expert, told the council the direction of the board was to "come back with a plan of action," and that the second floor would not be reopened until sprinklers or an approved alternative are in place.

Why it matters: the proposal combines historic preservation, town services and housing while exposing the town to significant near‑term capital costs tied to building code compliance. Hutchinson estimated a new elevator would cost in the range of $140,000–$180,000 and a sprinkler system $200,000–$250,000. The council and presenters framed the concept as a way to address a lack of senior affordable housing and to provide a dedicated senior center while keeping the town’s presence in the buildings.

The feasibility plan laid out two main options. Option 1 proposes four housing units (two on the Odd Fellows second floor and two accessible units at grade in the Fire Barn), plus a multipurpose senior/community center and on‑site parking and van storage; the elevator in the Odd Fellows could be removed in that layout, replacing vertical access with internal stairs and recovering machine‑room space. Hutchinson said the four proposed units would range about 560–860 square feet, two of them two‑bedrooms and two one‑bedrooms, and that two units would be ADA accessible. The report notes the two Commons buildings share water and septic infrastructure with the adjacent Wilbur McMahon School, which prompted a follow‑up investigation by civil engineer Bill Smith on whether the existing system can support new residential use or whether a dedicated septic would be required.

Option 2 would maintain existing uses (maintenance/storage in the Fire Barn; senior center and community assembly space in the Odd Fellows) but still requires the elevator replacement, sprinkler installation and stair repairs if the assembly use continues. Hutchinson noted the town could retain the buildings for community functions but would bear those capital costs directly.

Councilors and outside stakeholders endorsed the concept of partnering with Church Community Housing (a nonprofit community development corporation referenced by presenters) to limit the town’s direct financial exposure. Christian Belden, identified in the discussion as the director of Church Community Housing in Newport, reviewed how community development corporations typically combine federal, state and private funding—often using tax credits and grants—to build and operate affordable housing, and suggested such a partner could handle financing structures and monitoring requirements. Patrick Bowen, chair of the town’s Housing Trust, said he was "very enthusiastic" and expected the trust to consider a resolution endorsing the concept.

Council direction and next steps: Councilors voted to fund a capital needs assessment (motion amended and reaffirmed to a $3,500 cap) to get firm cost estimates and asked Councilors McHugh and Talbot to continue work on Option 1 with staff and to invite Church Community Housing to a future meeting. Hutchinson and staff recommended a life‑cycle cost analysis to understand long‑term maintenance burdens for the town and to clarify condominium versus rental ownership models. A stakeholder council model—bringing together senior center representatives, council members and building users—was suggested to guide decisions and long‑term oversight.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to fund a capital needs assessment up to $3,500 (motion amended and reaffirmed): mover not specified; second not specified; outcome: approved (voice vote recorded as "Aye"). - Motion to charge Councilors McHugh and Talbot to continue research on Option 1: outcome: approved (voice vote recorded as "Aye"). - Motion to invite/consult with Church Community Housing (no formal vote required in transcript; staff to schedule): direction recorded, not formalized as a separate vote.

Context and costs: Hutchinson identified major near‑term capital items: full sprinklering ($200,000–$250,000), replacement of the elevator and shaft ($140,000–$180,000), and exterior stair reconstruction if assembly use remains. The presenters said partnership with a community development corporation and grants (presenters mentioned a potential grant from the Champlin Foundation as one example) could reduce or eliminate direct town capital outlays under Option 1; Council members noted that Option 2 would likely place more of the lifecycle cost burden on the town.

Public‑use considerations: presenters said the plan aims to preserve the buildings’ historic character (restore original front windows on the Odd Fellows façade) and increase daytime presence on the Commons by adding residents, which was described as an added security benefit. Hutchinson also proposed preserving interpretive signage explaining the buildings’ history.

Limitations and outstanding items: the fire board variance requires a plan by April; the capability of the shared septic and water system to support residential units remains under investigation; precise funding sources and whether units would be rental or condominiumized remain to be determined. Presenters and councilors agreed that further technical work (capital needs assessment and life‑cycle costing) and discussions with Church Community Housing are required before any formal commitment.

Ending: Councilors encouraged public feedback and said staff will continue outreach to stakeholders and to Church Community Housing; a formal presentation by Church Community Housing was requested for the next meeting to continue planning and to help the council decide whether to proceed with Option 1 or retain the existing uses under Option 2.