Foster council sends multiple zoning and ordinance sections back to planning board after questions

The Foster Town Council voted Sept. 12 to refer a large group of proposed zoning and ordinance amendments back to the planning board for clarification after members and residents flagged unclear language and potential conflicts with state law.

Councilors identified several points that prompted the referrals: missing or inconsistent definitions for new terms such as “growth area” and “targeted growth center,” edits that altered existing HC‑2 zoning labels, and revised text about “lawfully existing or established” uses that councilors said contained double negatives and unclear grandfathering rules. Speaker 7, a planning representative, read passages aloud and acknowledged some wording was unclear; the council repeatedly said sections needed to be precise before any adoption.

Several specific motions carried. Councilors voted to send back the definitions section (Section 38‑2) for clarification; to return Section 38‑1‑31 (division of town into zoning districts) and the table of uses (Section 38‑191) to the planning board; and to return Section 38‑2‑28 (lawfully existing or established buildings/uses) after councilors warned the revised grandfathering language could change who remains protected as a pre‑existing use. Another motion bundled a longer list of subsections (several 38‑series sections read into the record) and sent that group back for further review.

Residents also weighed in at the public hearing. Mrs. Rau told the council that long‑time residents and property owners worry that recent application of state law and the new draft language — including changes in minimum setbacks and district rules — could make it harder to divide lots or afford to rebuild, and asked why state rules were being applied “so fast” in Foster. Council members responded that many of the drafted changes were intended to conform to Rhode Island General Laws where required, but they agreed to return ambiguous language to the planning board for clearer drafting.

Councilors noted there are multiple items that are straightforward edits adopted to align town code with state requirements, but they emphasized the need for the planner or the planning board to provide clearer citations and intent when the proposed ordinance text differs from RIGL wording. Several councilors suggested the planning board provide exact RIGL citations and confirm where local discretion remains.

Next steps: the planning board will revisit the referred sections and return revised language for further council consideration; several council members asked that complex topics, such as accessory dwelling unit provisions and nonconforming‑use rules, be scheduled for more in‑depth review sessions with the planner present.

Votes at a glance: the council voted unanimously (voice vote) to send the cited items back to the planning board; specific sections returned included Section 38‑2 (definitions), Section 38‑1‑31 (zoning district enumeration), Section 38‑191 (table of uses), Section 38‑2‑28 (lawfully existing/established uses), and a bundled list of additional 38‑series subsections for clarification.