Barrington planning board advances setback clarification, continues debate over town center form‑based code

The Barrington Planning Board voted on Jan. 6 to place a clarified definition of “setback” on the town ballot and agreed to continue work on a larger form‑based zoning amendment for the town center after extended discussion about minimum commercial requirements and enforcement.

President Driscoll opened the hearing and noted that two connected amendments were before the board: Amendment 6, which would add language clarifying that “where a yard abuts a street or travelway, the setback is the area between the abutting street or right‑of‑way line and the furthest projection of any building or structure,” and Amendment 7, a form‑based code proposal for the dove district intended to encourage mixed‑use, walkable development.

Consultants and staff told the board they had met with town counsel and revised the draft to address legal concerns about vagueness and defensibility. Ernest Creling, a town planning staff member, said the draft inserts a new definition for “service establishment” and adds a column in the district table of uses. He also urged that applicants show proposed commercial and mixed‑use structures on plan diagrams so the board and future development agreements reference a clear location for promised commercial space.

A central point of contention was how to require a commercial component that would actually be built. Consultants proposed that 30–50 percent of a parcel’s street frontage be devoted to non‑residential uses as a minimum; supporters said the measure would prevent developers from fronting an ATM and filling the rest with housing. “We’ve added a provision that 30 to 50 percent of the frontage has to be encumbered by commercial development,” a consultant said during the discussion.

But board members disagreed about the right metric and the level of prescriptiveness. Some members favored a firm 50 percent frontage minimum; others argued for a lower baseline or for expressing the requirement as a percentage of habitable living area (for example, 20 percent of living area) so infrastructure limits such as septic and water loading would be considered. One board member described a possible negotiated approach: adopt a defensible minimum but rely on design review, waivers and the development agreement to tailor requirements to each parcel’s market and physical constraints.

Members also discussed enforcement and guarantees. Staff and counsel recommended that as a condition of approval applicants enter a development agreement, and the board could tie issuance of certificates of occupancy to the completion of a specified share of commercial build‑out. The board considered but did not adopt a requirement for bonds; the attorney recommended including “some assurances” in the development agreement and noted the draft’s existing flexibility for the board to determine appropriate guarantees at approval.

On uses, the planning staff proposed a simplified district use list for easier administration and suggested leaving unusual or industrial uses (large warehouses, certain manufacturing) to conditional review. Solar installations (rooftop, community, ground‑mounted) and daycare classification drew specific comment; several members suggested moving more contentious items to conditional uses now and revisiting details after the code is posted.

Town counsel emphasized timing: to meet statutory posting requirements and get language in front of voters for the scheduled town meeting, the board needed clear direction quickly. Staff offered to prepare a one‑page voter guide, a map/diagram and QR links for outreach.

With no public speakers on the setback amendment, the board moved and seconded a motion to place Amendment 6 (the setback clarification) on the ballot and voted to defer final action on Amendment 7 until the Jan. 20 meeting so staff could incorporate clearer metrics, plan diagrams and outreach materials.

The board also approved the Dec. 16 minutes and adjourned. Staff said they will return with revised draft language, a proposed development‑agreement template and a voter‑guide one‑pager for the Jan. 20 session.