Planning Board Considers State-Mandated Zoning Changes

By Cynthia Drummond for BRVCA
September 27th 2023

RICHMOND – Planning Board members devoted the entire Sept. 26 meeting to a workshop focused on zoning ordinance amendments proposed by Town Solicitor Karen Ellsworth in response to state land use legislation passed during the last session.

The town is amending its zoning ordinance to comply with the legislation, which will come into effect on Jan. 1, 2024.

After going through Ellsworth’s proposed amendments, board members agreed to study the three most significant changes and discuss them at the next meeting. Once they have agreed on the amendments, they will make their recommendations to the Town Council. The memo explaining Ellsworth’s amendments can be found here:

For Richmond, the most significant changes will be the replacement of development plan review with a similar process that Ellsworth calls “site design review,” as well as amendments to the ordinances pertaining to accessory dwelling units and inclusionary zoning.

The new law governing accessory dwelling units prohibits cities and towns from placing “excessive restrictions” on additional housing structures built on a property. It is unclear what the state considers “excessive.”

The old law required that the people occupying accessory dwelling units be family members, including those who have disabilities or are over the age of 62.

The amendment permits non-family members in addition to family.

Inclusionary zoning, as it exists now, requires that 10% of the units in a development be affordable. The new law, which applies to projects with 10 or more housing units, raises that number to 25% and requires towns to allow the developer to add two market-priced units for every affordable unit.

Ellsworth’s memo states,

“The developer is allowed to increase the density of the development to provide the extra lots. … In other words, the law is no longer intended to help cities and towns maintain their share of low or moderate income housing when new developments are built. Instead, it is intended to substantially increase the number of affordable dwellings.”

Rural Towns Not Considered

Ellsworth told the board that the state legislation appears to have been drafted from an urban perspective, without regard for the infrastructure limitations of smaller, rural towns.

“I think the biggest problem is the people who are in charge of passing this stuff have an urban outlook and not a rural outlook,” she said. “They’re writing all of this stuff for Cranston, Warwick, Pawtucket. They’re not writing it for the small towns.”

Board Chairman Philip Damicis agreed.

“It’s certainly more potentially harmful to us than it is to urban areas,” he said.

A major concern is the higher densities that will be permitted.

“Almost all of the small towns in the state, there are no sewers and there are no water systems, or very few water systems, Ellsworth said. “If you don’t have the infrastructure, you can’t have the same density of housing. 

The changes are expected to have major impacts on development in the town, but as Board Vice Chairman Dan Madnick pointed out, only one person attended the workshop.

“We’ve got this workshop. The entire town was notified,” he said “There’s only one guy sitting here right now. These changes are going to affect you more than you realize.”