Little Compton opens public hearing on zoning updates to comply with new state rules

The Little Compton Town Council opened a public hearing Tuesday on proposed zoning ordinance amendments designed to conform the town’s code to recent changes in state law and to update local review procedures.

The amendments, presented by Allison (working with the planning board), would (1) require specific, objective criteria in local code for uses currently allowed only by special use permit so those uses are not unintentionally converted to uses allowed by right if the criteria are missing; (2) update the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) section to reflect the state-established maximum unit size and other statutory requirements; and (3) revise various cross-references and the special‑use review process in the zoning and subdivision regulations.

Allison summarized the legal change for the council: “state law now mandate[s] ... a municipality needs to specify specific and objective criteria for each of those, within your local zoning ordinance.” She told the council the planning board reviewed the town’s use table and drafted criteria for roughly 50 conditionally permitted uses so the uses would remain controlled through local review rather than becoming permitted by right as a legal default.

Council members and members of the public asked detailed questions about several use categories during the hearing. Councilor Gary pressed about riding stables, noting the use had shifted from permitted by right in a residential district to a special‑use category; Allison confirmed that a special‑use permit would now trigger review against locally adopted standards. Gary also queried whether medical offices in residences would be affected; Allison explained that “medical treatment facility” is treated separately from the home‑occupation rules and that the draft retained existing home‑occupation provisions.

Several public commenters voiced concern that some provisions could unintentionally restrict small, local home‑based enterprises. One commenter asked about the practical effect of a six‑customer daily limit in the photography/home‑occupation standard; Allison and others explained that the limit was intended to distinguish ordinary home activities from commercial uses that generate persistent traffic and neighborhood impacts, and that the planning board tried to align standards with the state’s requirement for objective criteria.

Town solicitor Tony Desisto reviewed the draft and told the council the language “conforms to the changes in the state law” and brings the town into alignment with the enabling statute while preserving local review authority.

After the public comment and council discussion, Councilor Gary moved to adopt the amendments as presented. The council voted in favor; there were no recorded objections.

The adopted packet includes substantive updates to the use table, a new set of criteria for each conditionally permitted use, amendments to the ADU section to match state law, and cross‑reference updates placing some comprehensive‑permit language in the subdivision regulations. Staff and the planning board will post the finalized ordinance language and the planning board’s criteria online and in the town clerk’s office.

Council members and planning staff emphasized that property owners who operate or plan to operate home occupations, small professional offices or kennels should consult the updated tables and criteria to determine whether a special‑use permit or administrative review is required.