Council sends affordable‑housing zoning back to planning board, continues ADU/FAR hearing after widespread public concern

The Narragansett Town Council on May 19 voted to send a proposed amendment of Appendix A (zoning) back to the Planning Board for further work and continued a related public hearing on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) clarification to June 2 after extensive public comment.

Earlier in the meeting the council considered a Planning Board recommendation to allow mixed uses in certain general‑business zones and a broader, ongoing Planning Board effort to craft clearer affordable‑housing incentives. Planning Board Chairman Mark Brady asked the council to return the draft to the Planning Board rather than advance the current text; Brady said the existing draft had evolved over several years and, in his view, had become “cumbersome and onerous.” The council voted to deny the proposed amendment and asked the Planning Board to produce a streamlined replacement that better balances developer incentives and community clarity.

The council then held a public hearing on state‑driven zoning updates that include rules for accessory dwelling units and the treatment of basements and cellars in FAR calculations. The Planning Board had drafted the text after reviewing state legislative changes. The council had proposed a single additional change — to exclude cellars from FAR calculations — and opened the hearing to public comment.

Planning Board and staff witnesses explained the consequences of excluding cellars and finished basements from FAR. Brady said removing cellars from FAR calculations can materially increase gross habitable area: on a 10,000‑square‑foot lot, he said, the change could produce roughly 900–1,000 square feet of additional habitable floor area — often enough to expand a house to five bedrooms or add a large family room.

Public commenters across multiple neighborhoods urged caution. Many said the practical effect of broad ADU rights and cellar exclusions would be to enable investor developers to convert family housing into multi‑unit rentals or dorm‑style housing for students and visitors. Concerns included increased pressure on parking, water and sewer infrastructure, the proliferation of seasonal short‑term rentals, and enforcement challenges for occupancy limits. Several speakers asked the council to require ADUs be limited to year‑round rentals and for owner‑occupancy or other constraints to prevent investor exploitation; others argued the Planning Board’s text already reflected careful deliberation and should be allowed to proceed.

After discussion the council voted to continue the ADU/FAR public hearing to June 2 and directed staff to draft text, for council consideration, that would require ADUs to be rented on at least a one‑year (annual) basis rather than be available as short‑term or transient lodging. The council also asked the Town Solicitor to confirm what limitations the state statute allows municipalities to adopt, because many aspects of ADU rules were established by state law and limit municipal discretion.

Planning staff said additional state legislative activity remains pending and that a reworked affordable‑housing proposal would likely be presented again in the fall after the Planning Board finishes a new draft. Planning director Jill Sabo told the council that, because of notice requirements, a planning board rewrite could realistically return for council review in September or October to allow for the state bills to settle and for the Planning Board to produce a simpler, implementable ordinance.

Council President closed the discussion by directing staff to prepare the requested amendment language and to place the ADU/FAR matter back on the June 2 agenda.

What changed at the meeting • Council denied the mixed‑use amendment and sent Appendix A back to the Planning Board to re‑draft with clearer, simpler affordable‑housing incentives. (Motion to deny passed 5‑0.) • Council continued the ADU/FAR public hearing to June 2 and directed staff to draft language requiring ADUs to be rented for at least one year; the council also asked the solicitor to review legal limits under state law. (Motion to continue and direct staff passed 5‑0.)