Will Ruth Platner's proxy now go along?
By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current
Big opposition to tiny houses last year took down a legislative attempt to make it easier to build in-law apartments, or accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
Victoria puts her back into helping So. County Habitat
build affordable housing on Legislator Volunteer
Day (photo by David DelPoio, Prov Journal)
Now in the home stretch of the 2024 legislative session, a compromise has emerged. Even municipal naysayers backed the amended legislation introduced by Sen. Victoria Gu, a Westerly Democrat, during a May 16 State House hearing.
At first glance, Gu’s version of the ADU bill appears similar to one spearheaded by House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi, which passed in the House earlier this year. But the tweaks to building and property size limits, alongside extra powers to cities and towns to set owner occupancy and minimum lease length requirements, have assuaged some of the harshest critics.
“Really, what we want to do is to keep as much local control as possible, giving municipalities the tools to expand ADUs based on their circumstances,” Jane Weidman, Charlestown town planner and chair of the American Planning Association Rhode Island chapter’s legislative subcommittee testified before the Senate Committee on Housing and Municipal Government on May 16 in support of Gu’s legislation.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Weidman was recruited to Charlestown by CCA leader and Planning Commissar Ruth Platner after Weidman was fired by Block Island. Weidman generally speaks only for Platner and not necessarily on behalf of Charlestown (in my opinion). - Will Collette
Unlike the House version, which was put forth without input from town planners, Gu’s version sought their feedback well before a formal proposal was introduced, Weidman said. The effort began as soon as the 2023 legislative session ended, with monthly meetings among lawmakers, planners, housing advocates and other stakeholders.
“It’s really a mindset that no one is your enemy, that we can work together to find compromise,” Gu said in an interview on Wednesday. “There has been broad support for an ADU bill generally so having that extra time to have many eyes on it and many opportunities to talk through things really helped us come together and put in a stronger bill.”
State law already allows ADUs, either within or detached from a single family home. But red tape in the form of vast and varied local zoning and building requirements have stifled their spread; in 2022 and 2023, 115 units were approved at the local permitting level, with 76 receiving a certificate of occupancy, according to written testimony from Housing Secretary Stefan Pryor.
Prior is among a host of housing leaders and advocates who have championed these smaller, untraditional homes as a way to ease the state’s housing crisis, giving seniors and lower-income residents in particular an alternative and more affordable place to live. Yet cities and towns decried loss of municipal control, their concerns ultimately helping to block the bill’s passage in the Rhode Island Senate last year.
The back-and-forth between housing advocates and local planners has played out again this year on Smith Hill. The legislation, part of a 15-bill housing package unveiled in March, sailed through the lower chamber in February, with a decisive 55-9 vote along party lines.
In an interview on May 16, Shekarchi, a Warwick Democrat, said the legislation remains his top priority this year, despite continued pushback from municipal leaders.
“It’s not surprising,” he said. “Change is never easy.”
He continued, “I try to work from consensus, but some things people ask for, I refuse to compromise on.”
‘Read the bill’
Both Shekarchi and Rep. June Speakman, a Warren Democrat who sponsored the ADU legislation on Shekarchi’s behalf, said some of the criticism was uninformed. For example: questions on how ADUs would affect available water and sewer supply or compromise building safety codes.
Shekarchi’s response to opponents: “Read the bill.”
The legislation doesn’t exempt property owners who want to build an ADU from any of those existing mandates, instead, it stops cities and towns from adding extra conditions around frontage and setbacks or infrastructure requirements beyond what is required by state law.
“This is, to me, one of the easier tools to use,” Speakman said. “It’s gentle density. You don’t even know they are there. They don’t change the look and feel of the neighborhood.”
But they do create more work for town planners and zoning officers, Shekarchi acknowledged.
The state has already relaxed building restrictions for ADUs twice in the last five years under laws passed in 2019 and 2022. The latest legislation aims to clarify some of the inconsistencies from prior policy changes, but it could also open the floodgates to new development that doesn’t necessarily achieve its intended effects, Weidman warned lawmakers.
“It’s deceptively complex legislation,” she said of the House version.
A plan to appease coastal towns
Unlike the House bill, Gu’s version won Weidman’s support, as well as the American Planning Association’s Rhode Island chapter.
The difference? Gu’s version takes municipal restrictions further, letting cities and towns impose provisions that properties with ADUs must be owner-occupied, and if the units are rented, the leases must last at least one year.
This is particularly important for coastal communities like South Kingstown, where seasonal student housing has taken over entire neighborhoods, Brian Wagner, the town’s senior planner said.
“You need to be honest with yourself about why you are supporting this legislation,” he told lawmakers on May 16. “If you are in support of people maximizing their real estate return on investment, then be honest with yourself. But that’s not supporting the real housing needs of the people of Rhode Island.”
Both House and Senate versions ban property owners from using ADUs as short-term rentals.
Gu’s bill also differs from the House version in its property and unit size requirements. The House version allows ADUs “by right” on properties of at least 20,000 square feet, limiting the size of the accessory unit to either 900 square feet or 60% of the size of the main house, whichever is smaller.
Gu’s bill sets the by-right lot size to at least 6,000 square feet in certain zones, or 40,000 square feet in any zone, with two different size limits for the units: 900 square feet for a studio or one-bedroom or up to 1,200 square feet for a two-bedroom.
Housing and senior care advocates lined up in general support for some kind of ADU legislation on May 16, though most did not specify which of the two versions they preferred. One exception: Melina Lodge, executive director for Housing Network of Rhode Island.
Lodge opposed the owner-occupancy provision, warning that because banks are reluctant to approve home loans with those stipulations, the requirement inherently restricts lower income homeowners who can’t self-finance from benefiting.
“We are more supportive of language that allows for the most flexible and expansive version,” she said.
Gu maintained that the Senate version was the “stronger bill,” both in technical clarifications and solutions to municipal concerns. Regarding restrictions on lending for owner-occupied properties, she said she spoke to two lenders who disagreed with Lodge’s claim, indicating the problem might only apply to certain financial institutions.
Speakman said she was open to compromise between the two versions of the bill, but did not comment specifically on differences around owner occupancy and lot and unit size.
Shekarchi’s take:
“The owner-occupancy requirement will not help to address the housing crisis,” he said in an emailed statement on Tuesday.
However, Shekarchi stressed the value of compromise in legislative negotiations generally, including the other bills within his 15-bill package.
Shekarchi: ‘I am always open to collaboration and to comment’
Fourteen of the 15, including the ADU bill, have already passed the House this year and are starting to be vetted by Senate committees. The 15th bill, creating a statewide, online GIS system including land information from all cities and towns, was scheduled to be voted out of the House Municipal Government and Housing Committee Tuesday afternoon.
A majority of the bills, 12 of the 15, were amended from their original form, either during the committee vetting or floor debate prior to passage. Some of the changes were minor tweaks, but others reflected more substantive changes aimed at assuaging concerns or correcting unintended consequences revealed in public comments.
“We really only started working on housing policy three years ago, so there are a lot of wrinkles to iron out and doors to open,” said Speakman, who also heads a legislative panel studying housing affordability.
For that reason, it didn’t make sense to focus on a single housing bill, even if the many pieces of Shekarchi’s package compete for attention, she said.
Others in the package have also run into obstacles. One example: legislation meant to expand where housing can be built to include commercial districts.
The bill sponsored by Rep. Joshua Giraldo, a Central Falls Democrat, originally required cities and towns to allow duplexes on 30% of their land, but was pulled back for revisions by Shekarchi’s own staff, The Providence Journal reported.
The amended version, approved by the House on May 14, replaces the duplex requirement with one calling for at least one mixed residential and commercial zone within each city or town while relaxing the conditions required to build duplexes.
“It’s not uncommon to see bills change,” Shekarchi said. “Very few bills pass exactly as written. I am always open to collaboration and to comment.”
The Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns, which expressed concern with several bills within Shekarchi’s housing package, was unpersuaded despite these changes.
“The League’s members have significant concerns about mandating residential uses in commercial zones which could eliminate commercial-only districts, and undermines home rule and local management rights,” Ernie Almonte, executive director, said in an emailed statement on Tuesday.
Giraldo’s bill is also one of two pieces of Shekarchi’s housing package still lacking a Senate companion. A House resolution calling for an 11-member panel to study how to improve the pipeline of town planners, does not require a Senate bill or even Senate approval because the commission falls solely under the House’s purview.
David Bodah, associate director for the league, backed the study commission in a March 28 letter to lawmakers, noting the shortage of planning professionals and absence of a local educational program to fill these jobs when aging planners retire. Bodah also suggested expanding the study to include building officials.
As for the ADU bill, the league backed the owner-occupancy provision in Gu’s version, while recommending lawmakers re-evaluate lot size requirements “to ensure there is an appropriate room for the ADU on the property,” Almonte said in an email. He did not specify what the league considers an appropriate lot size.
Senate President Dominick Ruggerio, a North Providence Democrat, remained noncommittal.
“We will let the committee conduct its due diligence on these bills before making any determinations,” Greg Pare, a spokesperson for Ruggerio, said in an email.
Status check
Here’s an update on the 15 individual bills in House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi’s housing package as of Tuesday, May 21
Ease local restrictions for building accessory dwelling units: approved by House on Feb. 14; Senate companion and alternative remain under consideration by the Housing and Municipal Government Committee following May 16 hearing
Allow manufactured homes in all places where single-family home are allowed: approved by the Rhode Island House on April 9; Senate companion remains under consideration by the Housing and Municipal Government Committee following May 16 hearing
Let cities and towns merge planning and zoning boards: approved by the House on April 9, Senate companion remains under consideration by the Housing and Municipal Government Committee following a May 14 hearing.
Require cities and towns include at least one, mixed-use district where commercial and residential development is allowed and easing duplex requirements: passed by the House on May 14; no Senate companion.
Clarify powers of state building code commissioner: passed the House on April 30; Senate companion remains under consideration by the Housing and Municipal Government Committee following May 14 hearing
Require electronic permitting for all local development applications: passed by the House on May 7; Senate companion and alternative remain under consideration by the Housing and Municipal Government Committee following May 16 hearing
Resolution creating an 11-member study commission to review and make recommendations on how to improve the pipeline of town planners; passed the House on April 11; no Senate version required.
Require a local, public list of abandoned properties: passed by the House on May 7; Senate companion remains under consideration by the Housing and Municipal Government Committee following a May 14 hearing.
Clarify setback requirements and streamline local permitting for development: passed by the House on April 9; Senate companion remains under review by the Judiciary Committee following a May 2 hearing.
Make it easier for developers to post financial security: passed by the House on April 9; Senate companion remains under review by the Judiciary Committee following a May 2 hearing.
Decrease how many affordable housing units are needed to qualify for density incentives: passed by the House on April 9; Senate companion remains under review by the Judiciary Committee following a May 2 hearing.
Ban municipalities from local wetland regulations that are already overseen by state coastal regulators: passed by the House on April 30; Senate companion remains under consideration by the Housing and Municipal Government Committee following a May 16 hearing.
Limit how long and for what reasons municipalities can temporarily stop accepting residential development applications: passed by the House on May 7; Senate companion remain under consideration by the Housing and Municipal Government Committee following a May 16 hearing.
Let mobile homes count toward municipal affordable housing requirements: passed by the House on April 30; Senate companion remains under consideration by the Housing and Municipal Government Committee following a May 14 hearing.
Require a statewide, online GIS system including local land information; slated to be voted out of the House Committee on Housing and Municipal Government on April 21; Senate companion remains under consideration by the Housing and Municipal Government Committee following a May 16 hearing.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Rhode Island Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: info@rhodeislandcurrent.com. Follow Rhode Island Current on Facebook and Twitter.
