Charlestown council repeals outdated impact-fee ordinance after monthslong debate

CHARLESTOWN, R.I. — The Charlestown Town Council voted 4–1 on May 27 to repeal the town's zoning impact-fees ordinance (Ordinance 4-30), removing language from Chapter 2.18 that councilors and staff said is outdated and not being enforced.

Councilors debated whether to keep a moratorium in place while staff completes a five-year capital-improvement plan and a needs assessment required by state law. Supporters of repeal argued the existing ordinance relies on 20-year-old analyses and is not administratively enforceable without a current capital plan; opponents urged caution because impact fees have generated revenue over decades that has been used for capital projects.

The ordinance repeal followed a long public hearing that included a planning commission advisory opinion recommending the moratorium remain until the town establishes a capital improvement plan and needs analysis. Town staff and several councilors said the town has not complied with the ordinance's administration requirements for 15 years or more. The council also heard that a consultant's needs assessment can cost on the order of tens of thousands of dollars; Hopkinton's recent study was cited at roughly $73,500 as an example.

Councilor Sarah moved to approve the repeal; Councilor Marr seconded. The roll call vote was 4 in favor (Councilors Sarah, Marr, Sloane and Carney) and 1 opposed (Councilor Stokes). The vote removes the existing impact-fees language from the town code and leaves the town free to return with new, updated ordinance language after it completes the required planning work.

Town officials and planning commissioners described several practical problems with the current ordinance when it was opened for discussion. The ordinance requires an annual capital-impact fee schedule tied to the town's capital budget and a memorandum of agreement in some cases with the Cherry Hill Regional School District; staff said those procedural elements have not been followed. Speakers also said the historical analysis referenced by the ordinance ("Town of Charlestown, Rhode Island Growth Management Program Phase 2 Impact Fees," dated Feb. 16, 2000) is outdated.

Members of the public urged the council to keep some funding mechanism for parks and recreation or open-space purchases. A resident identified as Bonnie of Slight Narrow Lane said towns need a capital plan for budgeting, while others pointed to Ninigret Park and recreation improvements as examples of how small fees could fund local capital work.

Councilors and staff outlined next steps: the town administrator was asked repeatedly during the hearing to produce a five-year capital-improvement plan and the needs assessment within a set period so the council can consider a new, legally compliant ordinance. One councilor made a separate motion (not as part of the ordinance vote) directing the administrator to return with a five-year plan within six months; the town solicitor advised that the motion was outside the advertised public-hearing action for this ordinance, so administrative follow-up will be handled in a future agenda item or workshop.

By repealing the current code language, councilors said they expect to avoid a scenario in which obsolete ordinance language remains on the books while the town continues work to produce current data and a defensible fee structure.

What the vote does not do: the council did not authorize collection of new impact fees, did not adopt a new fee schedule, and did not direct how future fees would be structured. Those matters will require a needs assessment, a capital plan and, if the council chooses, new ordinance language brought back for public hearings.

Action on the ordinance was taken by roll call: Councilor Sarah (yes); Councilor Marr (yes); Councilor Sloane (yes); Councilor Stokes (no); Councilor Carney (yes). The motion to repeal carried 4–1.