By FRANK CARINI/ecoRI
News
The maximum building
height in Charlestown is 35 feet, plus up to 5 feet of freeboard in flood
hazard areas. If Rhode Island Builders Association-supported bills are passed,
coastal structures in Charlestown and along the entire coast could get a lot
taller. (Charlestown building department)
CHARLESTOWN, R.I. — Two
bills recently approved by the General Assembly support the construction of
taller buildings along the Ocean State’s shoreline, which, according to some
municipal planners and building officials, would essentially result in the
walling off of the coast.
 |
| To send an e-mail: http://www.governor.ri.gov/contact/ |
The bills passed in the
House and Senate on June 23, the last day of the 2018 legislative session. The
bills now await the governor's signature.
If signed by the governor, the
new law would go into effect March 1, 2019.
The Rhode
Island Builders Association is using the state’s desire to
replace Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps with more
detailed Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC)
maps as a way to “dramatically increase building height along the coast,”
Charlestown town planner Jane Weidman said.
She noted that the bills would essentially increase structure size in coastal areas that are increasingly susceptible to sea-level rise, more frequent and intense storms, and other climate-change impacts.
“It’s not good planning
practice in general to build homes that block the shore and obstruct the view,”
Weidman said. “We should be retreating or moving away, not promoting larger
structures in flood zones. Why do we want to be massing up the most sensitive
areas we have?”
The Charlestown Town
Council adopted a resolution opposing
Senate bill S2413 and its
companion House bill H7741. The council,
along with Weidman and Joe Warner, the town’s building/zoning official and its
floodplain manager, are against altering the state definition of “building
height” to allow measurement from base flood elevation instead of
existing-grade elevation.
Rhode Island building
height has for years been measured from the average natural grade, or from the
ground itself, according to Weidman.
Under the proposed bills, that way of
measuring would stay in the state Zoning Enabling Act of 1991 for all new
structures except those being built in flood hazard areas, which would
automatically be allowed to go to an elevation equal to base flood elevation as
the measuring starting point, she said.
“This new bill would
allow for three to three and a half floors instead of two,” Warner said.
“We
promote elevating above base flood elevation and the changes we made two years
ago are working well. This bill isn’t adding any incentive or benefit for flood
protection or protection against extreme weather. It does nothing to protect
buildings from damage. We’d be building elevated mansions.”
Building and planning
officials in South Kingstown, Westerly and Narragansett share similar concerns.
ecoRI News reached out
to both CRMC and the Coastal Resources Center at the
University of Rhode Island to get their take on the two bills. The Coastal
Resources Center said it didn’t have anyone who could speak in depth about the
bills. CRMC acknowledged the request, but didn’t supply a response.
The Conservation Law
Foundation testified in April in support of the House bill.
Having the state go
from using FEMA maps to CRMC maps to
identify flood zones isn’t the problem the Rhode
Island chapter of the American Planning Association (APARI) and
others have with the bills. The concern is with other wording that has been
slipped in and what that could mean for both the look and vulnerability of
Rhode Island’s coast.
“This is a lousy bill
that will give wealthy land owners the right to block off the shore,” said
Weidman, co-chair of the APARI’s Legislative Committee. “Municipalities, and
neighbors on the land side, are either going to face higher structures within
flood hazard areas or are going to have to amend their zoning codes to reduce
total heights in these areas.”
During the 2016 General
Assembly session, the state’s definition of building height was debated by
planners and builders and eventually amended.
Among the major changes made was
to allow any property in a flood hazard area to have its building height
measured in a way that excludes up to 5 feet of freeboard. Measured in
feet, freeboard compensates for flood heights
and wave action by raising a building.
This change provided an
incentive for property owners in flood hazard areas to go higher than 1 foot
above base flood elevation, which is the current requirement in the state
building code. It’s a good law and it’s working, Warner said.
The so-called “freeboard
bill” passed without noticeable opposition from the Rhode Island planning
community. Developers were happy, because, as freeboard height requirements
increased in recent years, they said local height restrictions were limiting
building.
The 2016 bill that was
adopted, however, was much different than the original ask. Builders wanted
more, Weidman said, and these two current bills resurrect some of that old
language, including “for any property located in a flood hazard area, the
building height shall be measured from the base flood elevation.”
Both Weidman and Warner
recently told ecoRI News that the bills’ provision requiring that building
height in flood hazard areas be measured from base flood elevation should be
removed, as it was two years ago.
“This bill tells us how
to measure height,” Warner said. “Each community should be free to decide what
works best for it. This bill would increase the risk of wind damage to the
larger buildings it would allow."
They both agreed that
the current definition doesn’t need to be changed, and if it were to be by
these bills, it would result in a dramatic change in how building height is
defined and, without corresponding changes to a municipality’s building-height
limits in coastal zones, would result in buildings with excessive height and
bulk along Rhode Island’s coast.
Weidman is worried that
the concerns of planners and builders will again be ignored by those on Smith
Hill.
“There’s no pushback
against the builders. We don’t have that standing in the General Assembly like
they do,” she said. “We can’t get our bills out of committee. These bills are a
complete giveaway to builders.”
Warner is concerned too
few people, most notably municipal planners and building officials, understand
the true impact these bills will have if they pass.
“There has been no real
thought of the bills’ consequences,” he said. “There will be plenty of uproar
when building permits are pulled and neighbors see the size of beachfront homes
to be built.”
For instance, Warner
noted that the maximum building height in Charlestown is 35 feet, plus up to 5
feet of freeboard in flood hazard areas. If the Rhode Island Builders
Association-supported bills are passed, he said Charlestown could see buildings
as high as 56 feet along the shore.
“It’s about economic
development,” Weidman said. “It’s not about good growth, good land use, or good
environmental practices. It’s all about economic development. Our land use
needs to be done in a comprehensive manner, not caving to what builders want.”