Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Developer outlines Windsor School affordable-housing plan; council asked to amend sale to include small rear parcel

3001394 · April 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Joseph Tadino, attorney for Gemini Housing, updated the Smithfield Town Council on April 15 on the effort to convert the former Windsor School into age-restricted affordable housing and asked the council to amend the purchase-and-sale agreement to include a small, triangular parcel behind the school.

Joseph Tadino, attorney for Gemini Housing, updated the Smithfield Town Council on April 15 on the effort to convert the former Windsor School into age-restricted affordable housing and asked the council to amend the purchase-and-sale agreement to include a small, triangular parcel behind the school.

Tadino said preliminary architectural plans from Secosio Associates call for two buildings totaling 51 apartments — 29 units in the converted school and 22 in an adjacent new building — and that environmental testing found asbestos, lead and mercury inside the building and an underground storage fuel tank on the site that requires further testing.

“Inside the building, they did find asbestos, lead, and mercury,” Tadino said. He also told council members the developer has received phase 1 and phase 2 environmental testing and has a quoted price to remove the underground tank.

Seth Sokoloff of Barbara Sokoloff Associates, who spoke about financing, said Gemini has submitted three funding applications so far: two predevelopment applications (to Rhode Island Housing and LISC) and a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application through the state. He said the CDBG request, roughly “600 or so thousand,” was denied this round because the program requires a construction-and-occupancy timeline the project could not yet demonstrate.

“That CDBG was gonna ballpark here 5% of the funds,” Sokoloff said, explaining the loss of the CDBG award would mainly affect the timing for acquiring the property, not the project’s viability.

Tadino and Sokoloff outlined a project timeline that depends on planning-board approval ahead of a consolidated funding application expected to open in November. Tadino said the development team is seeking predevelopment funds to complete civil engineering, a traffic study and other site work necessary for a November funding round; full funding and closing were projected in later years under the schedule discussed.

The developers also raised a title issue: a 0.85-acre triangular parcel (Plat 6, Lot 44A) behind the school that was not included in the original purchase-and-sale agreement and that would be landlocked once the site is developed. Tadino asked the council to amend the agreement so the additional parcel would be included “at the original purchase price.”

Council members pressed developers on unit counts and timing. Tadino said the purchase-and-sale agreement requires a minimum of 42 age-restricted units but does not specify an upper limit; developers said 51 units is the design needed to reach financing thresholds, including low-income housing tax credits and other state and federal programs. Construction completion was discussed as targeted for July 2028, with financing close and construction start potentially in early 2027 if funding proceeds on the timetable laid out.

Concerns raised by council members and residents included the feasibility period in the purchase-and-sale agreement (365 days with the possibility of a 240-day extension), the project’s effect on site density and zoning relief the project will require, and whether the town should grant the additional triangular parcel without separate compensation. One council member told the presenter, “We’re not in the business of giving away stuff,” and asked the developer to rework their proposal if they expected the town to include the parcel without additional consideration.

Tadino and Sokoloff said remediation of hazardous materials would be handled during demolition and construction with certified contractors and a lead-hazard remediation plan; removal of PCB- and mercury-containing items was described as routine for projects of this type.

Tadino asked for the council’s continued support and suggested a future resolution that would demonstrate municipal backing to state funding agencies. Council members asked staff and the developer to bring back bullet points for a potential resolution to a future agenda.

If the council grants an amendment to the purchase-and-sale agreement, Tadino said that would be used to improve the site plan and to strengthen the project’s chances in the next consolidated funding round.

The council did not take a formal vote on the parcel amendment or on funding at the April 15 meeting; the discussion was a status update and request for follow-up.