Middletown Council OKs Penrose to pursue revised senior-affordable housing plans after heated public debate

The Town of Middletown Council on April 28 authorized Penrose LLC to proceed with a revised plan for senior affordable housing at the Berkeley/Peckham site (Green End Avenue/Elephant Lane) and the Oliphant site, directing the town solicitor and administrator to update legal documents and allowing Penrose to resubmit the proposal to the Rhode Island Department of Housing for financing.

The move follows a presentation from Penrose representatives and a lengthy public comment period in which neighbors and community groups raised concerns about parking adequacy, traffic safety on West Main Road and Oliphant Lane, building height and impacts on the adjacent senior center and ball field.

Penrose senior developer Rebecca Scofield opened the firm’s update by saying the presentation focused on changes since the last public review and answers to earlier questions. Carmen Chung of Penrose said the revised residential parking allocation at the Berkeley/Peckham site adds 32 spaces for 30 units—“a little bit more than 1 to 1,” she said—and noted an option for 12 additional overflow spaces in a nearby open area. For the Oliphant site, Penrose described a 72-space allocation for residents plus five spaces reserved for a nonprofit commercial tenant in the former school building, which the presentation characterized as a 1.8 parking ratio.

Residents and stakeholders at the meeting contested whether the numbers would be adequate in practice. The director of the Middletown Senior Center said, “What they’re proposing is absolutely not gonna work. We have 34 spaces. We have classes with 48 people.” Several parents and ball-field users described games that fill the lot; one resident said he counted 49 vehicles parked against the back of the senior center during a game and said the field hosts island baseball league Sundays from May through September.

Neighbors also raised safety and access questions. John Preritt and James England, both residents near the site, said Oliphant Lane and the West Main Road intersection already back up and that large trucks and buses exacerbate the danger. Charles Boyan asked about emergency vehicle access and trash collection for a larger building, and Robert and other commenters noted the existing gazebo and walking path where Penrose has shown optional overflow parking.

Penrose presented a shadow study showing that shadows from the proposed building would cross the property line only for a short time during the depths of winter; the firm also showed an alternate gabled-roof design that would raise the building peak to roughly 46 feet (about 10 feet higher than the previously presented 36-foot flat-roof option) and move mechanical equipment to screened ground locations.

Council members debated the tradeoffs between creating more senior affordable units and the project’s local impacts. Councilor Christopher M. Logan said the town is “stuck between a rock and a hard place,” describing state funding rules that make higher density more competitive. Councilor Tom (last name not specified in the transcript) and others pressed on parking details and the location of overflow spaces near the gazebo and senior-center pedestrian routes. Councilor Barbara A. von Villas urged prioritizing people over local discomfort, saying the town should “think about those people that are not as fortunate” who lack stable housing.

Frank Spinella, chair of the Affordable Housing Committee, urged the council to proceed with a higher-density plan as more likely to be funded by Rhode Island Housing, saying the committee and the town sought a partner with a successful track record and that Penrose’s proposal is “very competitive in the state competition.” Several councilors said the proposal still must clear planning-board review and any required comprehensive-permit waivers.

After discussion the council took a vote on a resolution authorizing Penrose LLC to proceed with the revised plan presented 04/28/2025, directing the town solicitor and administrator to revise and execute legal documents and authorizing Penrose to resubmit to Rhode Island Housing in the next funding round. The transcript records that the motion passed; individual roll-call votes were not specified in the audio record.

The council and Penrose staff noted the project will undergo additional technical review, including planning-board design review and any zoning waivers through the comprehensive-permit process. Council members and residents suggested follow-ups: clearer marking and enforcement of parking allocations, signage and crosswalk improvements near the senior center, further study of emergency access and refuse handling, and coordination of ball-field scheduling to reduce simultaneous peak parking demand.

Penrose’s next steps, as stated in the resolution, are to revise final plans, work with town staff and the solicitor on legal documentation and reapply to Rhode Island Housing. The council’s authorization begins that administrative process but does not constitute final planning-board approval or building permits.

Votes at a glance: the council approved the resolution to authorize Penrose to proceed with the revised plan; the transcript records the motion, a second and a recorded verbal approval in meeting minutes, but does not list a roll-call of named aye/nay votes.