Little Compton study maps two futures: scattered growth vs. village‑centered housing

Don McNaughton, chair of the Agricultural Conservancy Trust, introduced a year‑long futures study and invited Jill Dixon, principal at Agency Landscape and Planning, to present draft results to the Little Compton Town Council.

"This project is really intended to be applicable town‑wide," Dixon told the meeting, describing the study as a land‑use scenario planning exercise intended to inform the town's comprehensive planning work. The effort, she said, was supported by the Van Buren Charitable Foundation and local boards, and complements an economic study by Camoin and Associates.

Dixon presented permit and land‑use data showing 54 net new homes built between 2018 and 2024—an average of about nine new homes per year—and said projecting that pace forward produces a conservative estimate of about 325 new homes by 2060. She reported that of Little Compton's roughly 14,400 acres, only about 4,100 acres (approximately 28%) remain developable once wetlands, buffers and already‑developed small lots are excluded.

"Right off the bat, we're at about 51% of town that can't be built upon with new housing because it's too wet for homes to go," Dixon said, pointing to mapped wetlands, hydric soils and 100‑foot buffers. She also noted that roughly 28% of town is currently protected, but that about 17% of protected acreage overlaps land that is already wet and not suitable for development.

The team modeled two draft futures. Scenario 1, described as "trends continue," assumes continued low‑density, scattered development consistent with recent subdivision patterns. Scenario 2, labeled "housing and heritage," concentrates more new housing near village centers, avoids higher flood‑risk areas, and adds more connected conservation land. Both scenarios accommodate roughly the same number of new homes; the difference is where those homes are placed and how much contiguous open land is preserved.

Dixon said Scenario 1 results in a larger overall development footprint and higher environmental impacts—"more impervious surface" and higher modeled suspended solids, phosphorus and nitrogen loading—while Scenario 2 preserves more agricultural land and forest canopy and yields greater flexibility in remaining developable acres. The presentation gave a range for remaining developable acreage after each scenario (scenario ranges cited in the presentation were roughly 470–650 acres for Scenario 1 and about 870–1,050 acres for Scenario 2).

During public questions, audience members asked whether the scenarios incorporated fiscal impacts, demographic changes, water‑supply constraints and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Dixon said the Camoin and Associates economic study covers fiscal impacts and the project team hopes to connect that analysis to the scenario outputs. She said ADUs were included in the modeling; two‑family homes were not modeled in this phase.

Members of the public and the Ag Trust stressed that the remaining developable land is privately owned, which limits immediate municipal levers. "The remaining 4,000 acres is all in private hands," Don McNaughton said, emphasizing that the scenarios are conversation tools rather than prescriptive outcomes.

Next steps: the team will present to the housing trust on Aug. 20 and expects to hold a community‑wide conversation in September to refine the draft scenarios and explore zoning or other policy levers if the town wants to pursue a village‑centered approach.

The Town Council recessed for 13 minutes and planned to resume at 7:00 p.m. for the remainder of its agenda.