Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Smithfield council trims inclusionary housing requirement to 20% and removes fee‑in‑lieu after public hearing
Summary
The Smithfield Town Council voted Sept. 2 to amend the town’s inclusionary zoning rules, setting a 20% low‑ and moderate‑income set‑aside for qualifying developments and keeping the ordinance’s fee‑in‑lieu option removed.
The Smithfield Town Council on Sept. 2 approved amendments to Section 5.1 of the town zoning ordinance—commonly referred to as the inclusionary zoning rules—reducing the share of required low‑ and moderate‑income (LMI) units in certain new developments to 20% and leaving a previously removed fee‑in‑lieu provision out of the ordinance.
The amendment, which the planning board had recommended, also adjusts the size thresholds that trigger the inclusionary requirement: the ordinance now takes effect on single‑family developments of 10 or more units and on multifamily projects of six or more, as described during the hearing.
Why it matters: Town officials said the change is designed to make the local inclusionary option more competitive with the state’s comprehensive‑permit process, which developers sometimes use because it can yield density bonuses and a lower LMI percentage. The council and planning staff argued that lowering the local inclusionary percentage to 20% will encourage more developers to proceed under local zoning — and thus be subject to municipal standards and controls — rather than seeking comprehensive‑permit relief at the state level.
What was discussed: At the public hearing, residents asked for clarity on technical terms ("large‑scale condo development," density bonuses) and raised concerns about affordability and the town’s ability to absorb high‑density projects. The town’s solicitor and planning staff explained that state law and the comprehensive‑permit statute affect how local inclusionary rules interact with developers’ options, and that the state’s changes to market‑rate bonuses required the town to revisit its local ordinance.
Key points adopted: - Percentage: Council members agreed to amend the draft language from 15% (as posted) to 20% during the meeting to align options that would better compete with comprehensive permits. - Fee‑in‑lieu: The planning board had recommended leaving the fee‑in‑lieu provision removed; the council kept that removal in place. - Trigger thresholds: The amendment clarifies when inclusionary requirements apply to single‑family vs. multifamily projects (10+ single‑family, 6+ multifamily). - Density bonus alignment: The amendment restores the town’s alignment with the state’s current approach to market‑rate unit bonuses (a change described in state statute history during the hearing).
Public reaction and context: Speakers included homeowners worried about traffic, municipal services and realistic affordability given local median incomes; others urged the council to pursue state‑level advocacy. The mayor, state representatives and town residents were mentioned in public comments about past efforts to change the statute at the state level.
Outcome: The council voted to adopt the amendment as recommended by the planning board and with the 20% figure inserted by motion. The ordinance amendment now moves to the town’s codified ordinances and will be implemented per the town’s established administrative process.
Ending: The change reflects a local effort to balance affordability goals with the practical incentives that guide private development. Officials said they will monitor whether the amendment causes more projects to stay under local zoning rather than seek comprehensive‑permit status.
