[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6088208,"mediaKeyId","2884941-03c1c06ad788d5628265892a64b8c4a9","parentId",2884941,"title","Board refines outdoor‑lighting draft, withdraws initial approval and asks staff to redraft with enforcement language","audioSeconds",475,"startMs",4730000,"endMs",5205000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2884941-03c1c06ad788d5628265892a64b8c4a9&start=4730&end=5205","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2884941-03c1c06ad788d5628265892a64b8c4a9/thumbnail_4730000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6088208/New-Shoreham/Washington-County/Rhode-Island/Board-refines-outdoorlighting-draft-withdraws-initial-approval-and-asks-staff-to-redraft-with-enforcement-language","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6088208-e4cf3cd72eced1a3331c94eb16391c3d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168802&Signature=QJnrtc~oBkN5x9uzT9Jil7fd8sCQNuDGubvfhLiwSqCLP7APZXLlY~pkd7Bcm-CaQmqaESts8jbvkvQb9GhmYCMnZCMUcDK3G14CXMxbfTRnMqVhQTBw1J3TBDfLx5LdBO6vg7xGNbxfJtjNtVWuYN~eNn5AjHcj1tnwnfjXDp6QrBTRRQRFA71NgNfxWmWzqaaCShUwldM-LlPMKSSodRRB9nnZpu9lqz3IrtPTIzQ8nLywaAlYatLFED618o~AV2TPTjf1VQkLlLN1dLyxHvY2sJdu-ZnHRsVIFHI5TopNhpwMF1x80VPPPoSAcGtP-M6ZKspL6WNcgnOXLAvHCA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of New Shoreham","date","2025-01-08T00:00:00Z","article","The New Shoreham Planning Board on Jan. 8 reviewed proposed amendments to the town’s outdoor‑lighting ordinance (section 5‑12), discussed recommended changes from town planners and the solicitor, and asked staff to refine enforcement language and operational details before forwarding a finalized draft to the town council.

Why it matters: Board and staff said stronger lighting rules would protect the island’s night sky, wildlife (including the Great Salt Pond area) and the island’s tourism assets while balancing safety needs for businesses and residents.

Discussion and revisions
- Timing window: The board supported substituting a fixed 11 p.m.–6 a.m. window with a relative window that runs from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise, as advised by the town planner and solicitor.

- Motion detectors and timers: Members favored allowing motion sensors and automatic timers (for example, lights that shut off after a short interval of no activity) as a compromise that permits commercial safety lighting while limiting continuous night pollution. The board discussed a 15‑minute automatic shutoff as an enforcement tool.

- Enforcement and jurisdiction: The board discussed whether the lighting standard should be placed in the zoning ordinance or the town code. Staff and counsel advised that locating the rules in the town ordinance (rather than strictly in zoning) could broaden enforcement options; the board requested staff to confirm enforcement mechanism and to coordinate with the police on how violations would be handled as civil matters.

- Commercial district exceptions: Members asked staff to ensure the draft explicitly allows sensor‑activated lighting for commercial districts where businesses require safe, customer‑oriented lighting.

Vote and procedural outcome
The board initially took a voice vote in favor of a motion to forward the draft outdoor‑lighting ordinance to the town council, but later the mover withdrew the motion so staff could incorporate the solicitor’s suggestions (relative sunset/sunrise wording), enforcement language, and clearer commercial‑district guidance. The board will revisit a consolidated draft at the February meeting.

Next steps
Staff will: 1) revise the draft to replace the fixed 11PM–6AM language with the sunset/dawn window; 2) clarify enforcement responsibility and process (zoning official, building official or town code enforcement/police); 3) ensure motion sensors/timers are clearly allowed and specify the unoccupied‑property carve‑out discussed by staff; and 4) return a single, redlined ordinance for the board to review in February.

Ending
Members emphasized balancing light‑pollution mitigation with public safety and commercial needs and asked that the revised draft make permitting and enforcement clear to businesses and residents.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","New Shoreham Planning Board 1/8/25","oneSentenceSummary","The New Shoreham Planning Board on Jan. 8 reviewed amendments to the town’s outdoor‑lighting ordinance and asked staff to redraft enforcement and commercial‑district language before forwarding the measure to the town council.","taxTitle","New Shoreham, Washington County, Rhode Island","taxId",79696,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6088213,"Planning board removes 1,200‑square‑foot deck limit; asks for design diagrams on second‑floor decks",631,3511000,4142000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2884941-03c1c06ad788d5628265892a64b8c4a9&start=3511&end=4142","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2884941-03c1c06ad788d5628265892a64b8c4a9/thumbnail_3511000.jpg","/articles/6088213/New-Shoreham/Washington-County/Rhode-Island/Planning-board-removes-1200squarefoot-deck-limit-asks-for-design-diagrams-on-secondfloor-decks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6088213-f830bf256110136e820b1ce4ded0f4e3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168802&Signature=NMAieQcWHg7qYARi8LvSlruFtIGLNAyZn04wxHKUsNpV8jCGjEc7Ew1jXm592KuoPcfdTN54N6UfDCKzejgQYAtYv-DKjbhmKFyWZtUfkIgca0b9TiUio4HVHpUdkDmizOWG14BEzA77bpY17Ig0cb5SGiYKseXef4-OD4PJMwm0F0mjkUARnENZvywfUmkU6UO0mllpgNRu3BwWBgy08wiHLFXa5jbPNF~4HX0hwpH27cIeEJEw~HDXxO6wTPub9jdKwztbZFBELac21ZnaDpPVUSUe8ZfB6fcoTdkuF7wazXDilMIpccbMBKvM1exEET-9468VPN3eOmdE7NXTMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The New Shoreham Planning Board on Jan. 8 voted to remove a 1,200‑square‑foot maximum for balconies and second‑story decks from a draft zoning amendment and agreed to seek diagrammatic examples and legal language to clarify acceptable second‑floor deck designs.

Lede context: The issue arose from a town council request to clarify language in zoning section 4-06(g)(4) regarding second‑story decks — specifically whether the 1,200‑square‑foot limit applied to a single deck or to the cumulative deck area on a structure.

Why it matters: Board members said the numeric cap, as written, sometimes conflicts with architectural design on historic and vernacular houses; they worried a rigid square‑foot limit could force awkward walls or other treatments that harm design quality. At the same time, the board sought ways to prevent decks that “stick straight out” with no relationship to the house.

Key discussion and vote
- Ambiguity: Members and staff agreed the ordinance text was ambiguous about whether the 1,200‑square‑foot figure applied to each deck or the total of all decks; the board considered whether deck area should instead be regulated through lot coverage or other objective criteria.

- Two‑sided bordering language: The draft included a requirement that a second‑story deck be bordered on a maximum of two sides by exterior walls. Several members said the “two‑sided” wording confused applicants and designers; one member argued that requiring walls could, in many cases, harm the aesthetic and view access.

- Motion and outcome: A motion to eliminate the 1,200‑square‑foot limit for balconies and decks was made and seconded and carried (vote recorded as 4‑0‑1; one member voiced opposition during the roll call). The board then directed staff to obtain illustrative diagrams and bring the deck language back for further review in February.

Quote
\"Can we just drop that 1,200 square feet?\" a board member asked. After discussion, the motion to remove the maximum passed.

Next steps
The board requested the town’s planners (Libra Planners) and staff to prepare illustrations showing typical second‑story deck configurations (wraparound porches, small balconies, large projecting decks, decks over enclosed rooms) so the board can agree on objective criteria that balance design flexibility with the intent to prevent visually intrusive, un‑related projections. That work will be on the February agenda.","The board voted to eliminate a 1,200‑square‑foot cap on balconies and second‑floor decks from the zoning amendment draft, after lengthy discussion about how the rule affects building design and review; members asked staff to prepare diagrams and legal wording for the February meeting.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6088217,"New Shoreham planning board outlines multi-pronged push on affordable and attainable housing",7180,290000,7470000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2884941-03c1c06ad788d5628265892a64b8c4a9&start=290&end=7470","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2884941-03c1c06ad788d5628265892a64b8c4a9/thumbnail_290000.jpg","/articles/6088217/New-Shoreham/Washington-County/Rhode-Island/New-Shoreham-planning-board-outlines-multi-pronged-push-on-affordable-and-attainable-housing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6088217-796ef56293ed5113657e95f601ed65c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168802&Signature=F2jTjNoD7u14tpXgD6DTGoicI4sRRR6e4rVhYek1ehFTQHSOtgdPPtQIKL0Wljn7RzGPS8kNxrRvlce3lTh0eYl70NFDKqUV-5iZtISG7eG64z3Lr-gcOjGs9we5GjMl5sQhYIeLK2sfWoz86h-56NkgahHzjRcA77RiM7ANZtR1FHHygZSrjEktJArXvpqaQKRkmkncespulh~ZELiyZF4bNkt3jmHjqUjp1JG61PGlNhuJNuHFX~q5TXuLQCwAfE9PEWpPkUk9QDQ~tbTK0V2oSdT72KLih5oxWGYnF-hn6CETmTVSlakK~fUbWLbFCkysC-7241lRNO4a~7TUyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The New Shoreham Planning Board on Jan. 8 discussed a package of measures to increase affordable and attainable year‑round housing, including possible changes to zoning section 5-13, expanded use of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), creation of community land trust options and targeted incentives for year‑round rentals.

Board members, staff and several commenters reviewed a list of action items supplied by consultant Weston & Sampson and asked staff to return with legal guidance, funding options and a narrowed set of building plans the board could consider as “expedited” templates for ADUs.

Why it matters: Planning board members said the island’s limited land area and high property values make small, legally enforceable ownership and rental tools important to retaining year‑round workers (school staff, utilities, public safety and service employees) and families. Board members repeatedly emphasized the need for accurate, current demand data to shape choices about acquisition, subsidy levels and unit types.

Discussion highlights
- Subdivision/5‑13 revisions: The board agreed to further explore allowing smaller subdivisions of existing lots conditioned on recorded affordability restrictions so a smaller unit could be mortgaged and remain year‑round housing. Jen (Planning Department staff) noted forthcoming statutory amendments that will require updates to 5-13 language; members asked staff and counsel to reconcile any changes with state requirements before drafting ordinance text.

- Ownership vs. rental limits: Board members debated deed restrictions and term lengths (examples discussed included 30 years to in perpetuity) and whether ownership under 5‑13 could be limited to year‑round occupancy. Several members cautioned that allowing ownership without enforceable use restrictions could lead to conversion to short‑term rentals.

- ADUs and preapproved plans: The board discussed an “expedited approval” idea: a short menu of preapproved ADU designs (garage‑with-apartment, small detached cottages, modular units) that could shorten the permitting process. Planning staff reported a partial collection of proposed plans from private designers and modular vendors; the board directed a subcommittee to screen submitted drawings and identify 3–5 candidate prototypes the board could recommend for further engineering review or for a design competition.

- Community Land Trust and funding: Members asked staff to research Community Land Trust experience on the mainland and in nearby municipalities (Newport was mentioned) and to return with models for acquisition funding, stewardship structures and likely revenue streams. Staff flagged the housing board’s limited capital and recommended exploring donations, targeted town set‑asides and whether conservation organizations could partner on cooperative acquisitions.

- Incentives, tax measures and a dynamic needs database: Members supported exploring tax incentives for owners who offer year‑round rentals and asked staff to coordinate with the town’s homestead exemption work. The board also asked staff to accelerate development of a dynamic database — a living registry of year‑round housing need — to track applicants and better target projects.

Quotes (from meeting participants)
\"We should take a look at it after we find out what the new regulations are. There's no sense doing something only to find out two months from now that we can't do that,\" said Jen (Planning Department staff), summarizing the need to align local ordinance changes with state statutory updates.

\"Money is always the big issue. Money is the bottom line,\" said a planning board member during discussion of financing mechanisms for ADU assistance and land acquisition.

Next steps and follow‑up
The board directed staff and a subcommittee (members Gail, Claire and one other) to: 1) inventory and screen submitted ADU/subdivision plans and return with 3–5 buildable prototypes; 2) request legal guidance on enforceable deed restrictions and condominium sale restrictions for year‑round occupancy; 3) contact Community Land Trust operators for case studies and financial models; and 4) report progress at the February meeting. Weston & Sampson materials and a letter from Cindy Pappas were retained for reference.

Ending
Board members emphasized that any ordinance changes be legally vetted and coordinated across the housing board, planning office and town solicitor so the town does not adopt measures that conflict with state rules or cannot be enforced at the point of sale or transfer.","The New Shoreham Planning Board reviewed a suite of housing strategies—revising 5-13 rules, promoting ADUs, exploring community land trust models and targeted funding—and directed staff and a subcommittee to pursue legal, financial and design follow-ups ahead of next month’s meeting.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6088198,"Planning board approves Dec. 11 minutes and adjourns Jan. 8 meeting",36,7479000,7515000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2884941-03c1c06ad788d5628265892a64b8c4a9&start=7479&end=7515","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2884941-03c1c06ad788d5628265892a64b8c4a9/thumbnail_7479000.jpg","/articles/6088198/New-Shoreham/Washington-County/Rhode-Island/Planning-board-approves-Dec-11-minutes-and-adjourns-Jan-8-meeting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6088198-6d0951018d2e41e8c7867ae4ca95550d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168802&Signature=DxK1GKk92LReJGKlvF0rDyR-GQXpXZvpD6YKffEE39cJN7cv1sMF3B3S-N-X5bPj-FeRAPempLqirkA9pmgv782yQ-TxR2NBWVCcWHgX3NaGa2aYYK~jeiNbdrLmjvB8OJZVI3stH4uKHMDourdEcTUm9sebTqdxQ~XDD0xcA1DFRqvwFnj4IlnlPa9epMvpPYHj2gFN5jbiwjbZo6Rew6rGIvVhXLUUnCCJHe1ZPlzBrFF43SMWa-BKL5LI4wR2fK~rlwsgPcOlPT5KgBiCSWyQLd~SDel9wWuU7lcZ5ecyy3G1Ip1ELVDGHMZQvNTYvUBMFdiPKTPUCZTptKYZHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Jan. 8 meeting the New Shoreham Planning Board approved the Dec. 11, 2024 meeting minutes and adjourned following completion of agenda items.

Vote: The board voted to approve the minutes for Dec. 11, 2024 (voice vote; motion and second recorded). No corrections were offered. The meeting was then adjourned by motion and carried.

Administrative note: Outstanding items carried to the February agenda include further work on section 5‑13 (ADUs and subdivisions), historic‑district outreach and the revised outdoor‑lighting ordinance; staff will prepare materials and notices as directed.","The board approved the Dec. 11, 2024 meeting minutes by voice vote and adjourned the Jan. 8 meeting after handling agenda items; the board set continued items (section 5‑13 work, historic district outreach, lighting redraft) for February.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6088202,"Planning board reviews proposed historic‑district additions, asks staff to notify owners and solicit feedback",723,5607000,6330000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2884941-03c1c06ad788d5628265892a64b8c4a9&start=5607&end=6330","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2884941-03c1c06ad788d5628265892a64b8c4a9/thumbnail_5607000.jpg","/articles/6088202/New-Shoreham/Washington-County/Rhode-Island/Planning-board-reviews-proposed-historicdistrict-additions-asks-staff-to-notify-owners-and-solicit-feedback","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6088202-3e9c07b255eecaefa981f9acb56d361a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168802&Signature=asD2Fu~17eyiDkjHKeOCaJEAvpXzDowEMAm-2zbWH4oWmCnt8MLQ6wrtna-aju~lhulRLIgbUVgvoE-fL6h-XVlkKEm15voBRaLUjPm1sfpio2trljTc9-69e9lD3rAdyBlnOmNmMeGH5xfuB6fR8onJnI0mht9pb62PITVkH-bg8m1~WnNCHFsJP1dxY1weOf1wIZywpN0yUmC2qXVtJkZOewBQ75Wg1uohEcDNM0xNG~9~o77m1PBpXPvzmXJ6pchnMdw4Ov8ZugWVGPfrOyn~LebmMPOWKADkYcmjBEDwAJk-bNGW0SSwSVJJLIqxSHEO6BknW2VNcvU9cSWr7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The New Shoreham Planning Board on Jan. 8 reviewed maps proposing expansions to the town’s local historic district and asked staff to prepare a courtesy notice to affected property owners explaining the board’s rationale and inviting feedback ahead of any formal action.

Why it matters: Members of the Historic District Commission and the planning board said including contiguous parcels—especially in Indian Neck, the Old Harbor/New Harbor walking corridor and portions of Old Town Road—would preserve the character of important pedestrian corridors and protect future development from incompatible design. Several commissioners said the intent is to preserve the visual continuity of streets where buildings and landscape form a historic streetscape.

What the board asked
- Notice and outreach: Because property owners had not yet been noticed, the board asked staff to circulate a courtesy letter explaining the mapping, the reasons for the proposal and the process for comment. The planning director volunteered to draft a letter the board can review.

- Mapping adjustments: Commissioners and staff flagged a few parcels that appear to create isolated gaps in the proposed overlays and asked staff to double‑check boundaries and consider small expansions where warranted (for example, the parcel across from the Ogden/Old Harbor area and a cluster off Connecticut Avenue).

- Next steps: The board will include the historic‑district expansion on the February agenda after staff completes owner notices and compiles the Historic District Commission’s written rationale for each suggested parcel.

Ending
The planning board and HDC members emphasized the board’s intent to solicit owner feedback before any formal zoning overlay amendment is recommended to the town council.","The board reviewed maps proposing three historic‑district expansion areas (Indian Neck/Beach Avenue, parts of Old Town Road/Connecticut Avenue and a West Side cluster), agreed to notify property owners and asked the Historic District Commission to provide written rationale for each parcel.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board refines outdoor‑lighting draft, withdraws initial approval and asks staff to redraft with enforcement language

Planning board removes 1,200‑square‑foot deck limit; asks for design diagrams on second‑floor decks

New Shoreham planning board outlines multi-pronged push on affordable and attainable housing

Planning board approves Dec. 11 minutes and adjourns Jan. 8 meeting

Planning board reviews proposed historic‑district additions, asks staff to notify owners and solicit feedback