Middletown officials hear revised Penrose plan to add 72 affordable units at Green End Avenue and Oliphant Lane; no vote taken

MIDDLETOWN, R.I. — The Town of Middletown heard a presentation March 3 from developer Penrose and its design partners on a revised plan to create about 72 affordable housing units across two town-owned sites at Green End Avenue (the Berkeley Peckham property) and Oliphant Lane. Council members and staff said the change — adding a third story on portions of the plan — is intended to improve the application’s competitiveness for Rhode Island Housing tax credits; the council did not take a vote on the proposal at the meeting.

The plan presented by Penrose would combine a senior-oriented building at the Green End site with mixed-income family housing at Oliphant Lane, for roughly 72 total units. Carmen Chung, head of Penrose’s New England regional office, said the firm revised the design to increase density because Rhode Island Housing scores applications based in part on cost per unit and density; this year there were 15 competitive 9% tax-credit applications and only a few awards available. “We saw the town’s commitment,” Chung said, and Penrose revised the design to maximize points under the state scoring rules.

Why it matters: The town has identified affordable housing as a priority but must secure low-income housing tax credits and other financing to build. Presenters said the change to a three‑story form is driven by state scoring and financing realities; neighbors said the size and siting would alter neighborhood character, increase traffic and strain parking and sidewalks near the senior center and the ball field.

Background and timeline

Town staff and the consultant Frank Spinella recounted a multi‑year process that began in 2017. The council created an Affordable Housing Exploratory Committee in 2018, issued an RFP, then hired a consultant. Penrose was selected as the development partner in January 2024 and submitted a consolidated application that was turned down by Rhode Island Housing in May 2024 because, presenters said, the earlier two‑story design did not provide sufficient density. The town and Penrose revised the plans in early 2025 to increase unit counts and add amenity spaces and energy‑efficiency measures so the application would score better for tax credits; the Affordable Housing Committee gave a unanimous positive recommendation on Feb. 19, 2025, and the committee’s recommendation was delivered to the council before this meeting.

Project design and affordability

Penrose and its design team (Horstley Whitten/Wesley Whitten Group and Union Studio Architecture and Community Design) showed updated site plans and renderings. The team described the proposed affordability mix in general terms: at least 20% of units at 30% of area median income (AMI), most units at or below 60% AMI, and an additional tier at 80% AMI, with the overall average below 60% AMI. The team said the current concept yields roughly 72 units across the two sites and would include amenity spaces (lounges, package/mail rooms, fitness space) and sustainable design elements required for points in the Rhode Island Housing scoring.

Jason Crowell, a senior design engineer with Wesley Whitten Group, described site adjustments intended to accommodate the added floor while maintaining the gymnasium and community center at the Green End site and preserving on‑site gardens where feasible. Union Studio principal Paul Ataman showed building massing examples and said the team would try to shape the façades to fit neighborhood scale.

Parking, circulation and building services

Designers told the council they had increased parking slightly by shrinking building footprints and moving trash compaction rooms indoors; they described a shared‑use approach to parking because the site includes three overlapping uses — the proposed residential buildings, the senior center and the ball field — whose peak parking demands occur at different times. The design team said they had provisionally planned roughly 112 parking spaces across the combined sites (an amount that includes spaces currently used for baseball/field events). For the senior building the designers discussed a residential parking ratio higher than 1.0 per unit; they said typical senior projects they build sometimes use ratios near 1.25–1.5 cars per unit depending on local conditions and program requirements.

Presenters also said the Green End senior building would include elevator access (two elevators were discussed for redundancy); smaller family buildings planned for Oliphant Lane would be walk‑ups without elevators in the individual small buildings, while the adaptive‑reuse administration building at Oliphant would be made accessible.

Public comment and concerns

Council members opened a lengthy public comment period. Many neighbors asked detailed questions and raised objections focused on traffic, parking, sidewalks, building height and neighborhood character:

- Rita (address stated as 209 Corey) said the rendering was “beautiful” but that she worried about adding a three‑story building in a narrow residential stretch of Green End Avenue and the additional traffic it would bring.

- Suzanne (Sue) Dallas, who lives on Green End Avenue, said sidewalks are in poor condition and asked whether pedestrian safety and sidewalk improvements were included in the project scope; staff and presenters said traffic and engineering studies are typically completed at the preliminary plan phase rather than at master plan, and that sidewalk improvements are not currently on the town capital improvement list.

- Rose Hill, who lives on Berkeley Court abutting the Green End site, said the three‑story mass would eliminate buffers and views and worsen parking pressures during senior center and ball field events.

- Several speakers including Charles Aboy, Chuck Belt and others said they supported affordable housing in general but opposed the size, location and scale of the proposed three‑story building at Green End Avenue and urged the council to consider other town‑owned parcels such as Linden School or sites nearer transit or commercial corridors.

Support and committee recommendation

Members of the Affordable Housing Committee and other advocates urged the council to move the design forward. The committee’s formal resolution, presented at the meeting, “recommends that the Middletown Town Council approve the Penrose proposal presented to the AHC on 02/19/2025” and asked the council to approve continuation of design funding and the application process to meet the Rhode Island Housing deadline at the end of 2025. An AHC speaker framed the changes as necessary to respond to the state’s competitive scoring and financing environment.

Legal and procedural context

Town staff and the designer explained how state law and Rhode Island Housing rules shaped the schedule and design decisions. Consultants told the council that Rhode Island Housing’s competitive 9% tax credits are awarded annually and that application scoring compares cost‑per‑unit and density among applicants; Penrose described the East Greenwich Soria project (a 63‑unit senior building) as a comparable development the team recently completed. The town solicitor and planning staff discussed recent changes to state comprehensive‑permit procedures that have shifted some engineering and design work to earlier stages of review; staff said certain technical studies (traffic, stormwater, wetlands) are typically completed during preliminary plan review.

Next steps

Presenters said they were seeking feedback and did not request a council vote that night. If the council supports advancing the plan, the team said next steps would include preliminary plan approval, more detailed engineering and cost estimating, final permitting and a tax‑credit application later in the year; Penrose said an improved, denser design would make the project more competitive for the end‑of‑year Rhode Island Housing application, with awards typically announced the following spring.

Discussion vs. decision

Councilors emphasized the meeting was for information and public input; no council motion to approve the revised design or to give final authorization to pursue tax credits was made or adopted. The meeting record shows the council previously approved master plans and contracted with Penrose; the revision presented in March 2025 was explicitly offered as a response to the state’s scoring feedback rather than as a final, council‑approved plan.

What remains unresolved

Speakers asked for a traffic study timed during peak summer months, a formal landscape and screening plan that abutters can review, clearer parking counts tied to the final unit mix, clarification of whether and how Middletown residents would be prioritized in marketing, and confirmation of environmental testing or DEM review where Oliphant abuts Bailey Brook and wetlands. Several residents asked for the town to consider alternate municipal or privately owned sites (for example, Linden School or other commercial corridors) to reduce impacts on residential neighborhoods. The project’s success is contingent on securing state tax credits and local planning approvals; until those are in hand the design remains subject to change.

Speakers (selected)

- Sean (town staff), project timeline and municipal history - Frank Spinella, consultant with FJS Associates, project consultant since 2018 - Carmen Chung, head of Penrose’s New England regional office (developer) - Becca (Penrose development team), project financing and tax‑credit experience - Jason Crowell, senior design engineer, Wesley Whitten Group (site plans) - Paul Ataman, principal, Union Studio Architecture (massing and materials) - Kim Blass, member, Middletown Affordable Housing Committee (committee recommendation) - Rita (resident, 209 Corey), Suzanne Dallas (resident, 475 Green End Avenue), Rose Hill (resident, 36 Berkeley Court), Charles Aboy (resident, 717 Green End Avenue) and other neighbors who spoke during public comment

Authorities referenced at meeting

- Rhode Island General Laws cited for executive session: R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 42‑46‑2, 42‑46‑4 and 42‑46‑5(a) (as read at the meeting) - R.I. Gen. Laws § 42‑46‑7 (motion to seal executive session minutes was made under this statute) - Rhode Island Housing (competitive 9% low‑income housing tax credit program; application deadlines and scoring described by the development team) - Fair housing and anti‑discrimination statutes (generally referenced by presenters as constraints on the project)

Clarifying details (from the meeting)

- Proposed unit total: about 72 units across both sites (presenters’ summary) - Typical affordability tiers described by Penrose: >=20% of units at 30% AMI; majority at or below 60% AMI; additional tier at 80% AMI (states and presenters) - Parking: design team cited roughly 112 spaces across combined sites in current concept (this number includes existing ball field parking); designers discussed residential parking ratios in the range of about 1.25–1.5 spaces per senior unit in comparable projects (team comments) - Timeline: master plans approved by planning board Nov. 2023 (2‑story concept); Penrose contracted Jan. 2024; application denied May 2024; revised plans to increase density delivered to AHC Feb. 2025; AHC recommended Feb. 19, 2025; town council received recommendation and held the March 3, 2025 hearing; tax‑credit application window targeted for late 2025 with awards announced the following spring (presenters’ schedule)

Meeting context

- Engagement level: extensive public comment (many speakers, sustained neighborhood concern), multi‑year project history dating back to 2017, AHC recommendation given Feb. 19, 2025 - Implementation risk: medium–high (proposal depends on competitive Rhode Island Housing tax credits and subsequent planning approvals) - Policy stage: revised master/preliminary design to enable a state tax‑credit application; no council approval or formal vote on the revised design at this meeting

Searchable_tags:["affordable housing","Penrose","Green End Avenue","Oliphant Lane","Rhode Island Housing","Middletown RI","tax credits","senior housing","parking","traffic","Berkeley Peckham"]