Land-Use
Bill Targets Rural R.I.
By DAVE FISHER/ecoRI.org News staff
The bill
(H7866), crafted by the Rhode Island Builders Association (RIBA), would add just a few
paragraphs to the state’s building code, but those few words could drastically
change the look of rural Rhode Island. Provisions in the bill would
significantly shrink the acceptable “buildable lot size” from 80,000 square
feet to 40,000 square feet, eliminate the assessment of slope when calculating
buildable area and add a definition of the oxymoronic “conservation development”
to the code.
Opponents say the bill would hamstring local zoning officials and
open up hundreds of thousands of acres in rural Rhode Island to development.
The lead
sponsor of the bill in the House, Rep. Raymond Gallison Jr.,
D-Bristol/Portsmouth, offered no testimony on the bill at a recent House
Municipal Government Committee hearing, except to say that, “There is a lot of
confusion surrounding this bill. It simply clarifies the building code for
building officials.”
He then
added, referring to RIBA representatives, “I don’t know much about the
intricacies of the bill. I’d rather let the experts testify on them.”
RIBA President John Marcantonio, citing a study from Texas State University that ranked Rhode Island as the No. 1 state in land-use
regulation, said, “Local legislation has grown exponentially, while the market
for new homes has steadily declined. We’ve seen a 7 percent reduction in the
(homebuilding) sector. The industry is underwater. This bill will slightly
reduce that level of regulation, and allow us to put people back to work.”
There is
no shortage of opposition to the bill, from statewide groups such as the
Environment Council of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Association of
Conservation Commissions, Audubon Society of Rhode Island, the local chapter of
the American Planners Association, Save The Bay, and a host of local land
trusts and conservation commissions.
“There
is widespread opposition to this bill,” said Paul Roselli of the Burrillville
Land Trust, “We (opponents of the bill) feel that these changes would increase
density in rural areas where many towns are ill-equipped to handle increased
demand for water and waste services, increase municipal government service
costs associated with an increase in single-family residences, increase the
costs of revising each town's comprehensive plan, and lessen local control of
zoning matters.”
Despite
the drop in new home building, “The remodeling, renovation and repair building
trades are thriving,” Roselli said. He noted his personal experience as a lead
abatement certification instructor, and the lack of shortage of applicants for
certification, as proof that some areas of the building trades are thriving.
While
the bill contains language about “increasing density," by default, the
bill targets only rural areas. As Roselli testified, “Areas of the state that
are already urbanized will see no benefit at all from this bill.”
Roselli
concluded his testimony by saying, “This law is in direct conflict with
existing laws, Department of Environmental Management and Coastal Resource
Management Council regulations, and the statewide land-use 2025 resolution.”
Chris Duhamel, a representative of RIBA, said, “We’re not trying to create minimum requirements for lot size. The bill only offers some flexibility in determining lot size. It contains no usurpation of DEM or CRMC regulations.”
Jane
Austin, spokeswoman and lobbyist for Save The Bay, testified against the bill.
"This bill will loosen physical and environmental constraints on builders,
and will ultimately lead to growth in areas where we don’t want it," she
said.
The most
vigorous opposition at the hearing came from Mimi Karlsson of the Hopkinton
Affordable Housing Partnership. “We must continue to have large dry-lot zoning
in rural areas to maintain water quality," she said. "This bill has
no consideration for maintaining water quality. If we increase density in areas
that rely on septic systems and wells, people will be drinking their own sewage
sooner, rather than later. This is Leavittown lunacy that we don’t need in Rhode Island .”
Bob
Baldwin, a developer speaking in support of the bill, said the bill is being
framed by opponents as “creeping regulation versus environmental stewardship,
and it’s not.” He pointed to a recent 48.5-acre lot that he bought that local
zoning ordinances deemed suitable for building only six houses. “This bill
would allow me to build 12-14 houses on that land," he said.
“There
are houses standing empty all over Rhode
Island ,” Eugenia Marks said in opposition to the
bill. “I’m not sure that regulations are the issue here. The impervious
surfaces associated with increasing development in rural areas will increase
pollution and stormwater runoff in these sensitive areas.”
The bill
was held for further study.