Planning board flags conflicts between state density rules and local comprehensive-permit standards

At a Sept. 25 special workshop the Tiverton Planning Board reviewed proposed updates to zoning appendix A that incorporate recent state changes to adaptive-reuse and density rules, and members flagged potential conflicts with other state statutes that govern comprehensive permits.

The draft insertions implement language lifted from state law allowing adaptive reuse if a building previously used for industrial or manufacturing uses has been vacant of that use for at least one year and if the development has access to public water/sewer or approved private systems. Town counsel noted he had taken the text “straight from the general laws.”

Why it matters: the new state provisions also create a density threshold that, if met, removes density limits for certain residential conversions (the board paraphrased this as developments with at least 10% low- or moderate-income units receiving no density cap). Members warned that the town’s existing comprehensive-permit statute (cited in the discussion as a separate section of state law) contains alternative density-bonus calculations tied to water/sewer availability, and that the new language could disincentivize use of the comprehensive-permit process.

Discussion highlights

Vacancy requirement and eligible building types: Counsel and staff explained the state’s vacancy requirement applies to buildings previously used for industrial/manufacturing uses. Several board members asked whether schools and other institutional buildings can be added locally to the vacancy requirement; counsel said the state law specifically references industrial/manufacturing uses and he would research whether the town can add schools or religious facilities to the local version.

Density and conflicting bonus schemes: Board members repeatedly cited the possible tension between a state allowance that, on qualifying projects, removes density limits when a developer includes at least 10% affordable units and existing comprehensive-permit bonus tiers that scale with public water/sewer availability. Members worried that unlimited density for a 10% LMI set-aside could undercut the incentives designed by the comprehensive-permit statute and could produce outcomes the town did not intend.

Water, sewer and technical feasibility: Several members asked whether “public water” meant merely that a main runs past a property or whether it required demonstrable system capacity and operational adequacy. Staff and counsel said the draft follows the state text in requiring access to public water/sewer or approved on-site systems; they emphasized the permitting agencies (water district, DEM) would be the parties to confirm capacity and system feasibility and that a municipal approval would not override those technical determinations.

Next steps and legal options: The board asked staff to investigate whether other municipalities had raised similar concerns with the General Assembly and whether the town could propose clarifying language at the municipal level or coordinate with other towns. Romano agreed to research the legal options and report back.

Ending: The board did not vote on text at the workshop. Members agreed the questions about density, eligible building types and definitions of “adequate” public water should be clarified in the written draft before it is transmitted to Town Council.