A new state legislative commission will study ways to evaluate, plan for, and limit the impacts of new housing developments on public water supplies and watersheds in rural areas under legislation sponsored by Richmond Representative Megan L. Cotter and approved by the RI House on June 8, 2026.
There is an assertion that the allowed number of dwelling units on any lot north of Rt.1 in Charlestown could be doubled if conventional septic systems were replaced with nitrogen-reducing systems. However, the limiting nutrient in freshwater systems is phosphorus, not nitrogen, and no commercially available wastewater treatment system, whether nitrogen-reducing or not, removes phosphorus.
According to the report, the highest growth rates for the three-year period 2021 to 2024 were in West Greenwich, 6.11%; Glocester, 5.62%; South Kingstown, 4.8%; Exeter, 4.64%; Charlestown, 4.58%; Central Falls, 4.55%; Cumberland, 4.55%; North Kingstown, 3.37%; and Tiverton, 3.16%. The report states that “maintaining the momentum is critical to resolving our state’s housing crisis.” But that momentum is aimed squarely at Rhode Island’s remaining farms and forests and away from urban areas.
Charlestown, along with Portsmouth, Tiverton, Hopkinton, Burrillville, Bristol, Smithfield, West Greenwich, East Greenwich, Lincoln, Middletown, and Westerly have all signed the statement which is printed in this post. This initiative to gain statewide support to restore local zoning control may already have other towns’ support beyond those listed here. Please encourage other towns to sign the statement.
Rhode Island is the smallest U.S. state by land area, and the second most densely populated state, exceeded only in density of development by New Jersey. Charlestown, at 160 dwelling units per square mile, is the most densely populated rural town in the state and the most densely populated community lacking both sewers and public water.
Did you miss the March 30 meeting about loss of local control over zoning and land use? We’ve included a video of the meeting in this post in case you would like to see the discussion.
When: Monday, March 30 at 6:30 pm
Where: Charlestown Town Hall on Route 2 (4540 South County Trail)
What: Public workshop of the Town Council and representatives of other impacted towns
The workshop, proposed by Councilor Bonnie Van Slyke, will begin an in-depth conversation about issues surrounding housing and state mandates.
Let the Rhode Island Senate know that you support Senator Victoria Gu’s bill to protect our environment and natural resources. This bill would give local communities greater control over the density of housing developments built on public drinking water supply watersheds and groundwater so clean it is classified as suitable for drinking without treatment. Sample email to send in post.
At the March 9 Town Council meeting, Councilor Bonnie Van Slyke introduced a resolution in support of Representative Megan Cotter’s and Senator Victoria Gu’s bills to protect our drinking water. Our zoning is designed to protect our drinking water, but enormous housing density bonuses put our drinking water at risk.
Scott Millar is an Environmental Scientist and Land Use Planner who worked in leadership positions at the RI Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) and Grow Smart Rhode Island. In this post he explains why watersheds for public surface water and groundwater drinking water supplies are not appropriate for high-density development.
RI DEM Onsite Wastewater Treatment System rules focus on individual system compliance rather than cumulative impact analysis. While designed to prevent individual failures, they fail to address the collective, long-term nutrient loading from high-density, individual septic systems on groundwater and coastal watersheds.
Let the Rhode Island Legislature know that you support Representative Megan Cotter’s bill to protect our environment and natural resources. This bill would give local communities greater control over the density of housing developments built on public drinking water supply watersheds and groundwater so clean it is classified as suitable for drinking without treatment. Sample email to send in post.
State legislation passed in the last three legislative sessions has claimed to be about affordable housing, but in Charlestown the only result has been more market-rate units. Increasing supply might lower housing costs in some communities, but it hasn’t worked in coastal towns like ours.
In the last year, a few developers have proposed packing into their developments many more houses per acre than are allowed under zoning. For instance, on an environmentally sensitive parcel zoned for about 20 houses, over 400 dwelling units were proposed. Recent changes to Rhode Island law make over-development in vulnerable areas in Charlestown almost inevitable.
Keeping the water that flows beneath the ground (groundwater) clean is one of the most important issues facing Charlestown—not only because it is the source of our drinking water, but also because its deterioration will affect the health of our saltwater ponds and inland lakes.
UPDATE: The applicant asked to have this presentation postponed until October 22
When: Wednesday, August 27 at 7 p.m.
Where: Charlestown Town Hall
What: Pre-Application Conference for proposal to construct 9 new buildings that will hold 11 residential units on 1.397 acres in the Traditional Village District
The owner of two lots on the south side of Rt. 1A at its intersection with Ridgewood Road (Plat 13, Lots 31 & 32, 3740 Old Post Road) proposes to combine the two lots to create a 1.397-acre lot.
UPDATE: This application was continued to September 24 at 7 pm
When: Wednesday, August 27 at 7 p.m.
Where: Charlestown Town Hall
What: A public Master Plan hearing on a major residential development (Plat 28, Lot 82-1; 28.7 acres; Carolina Village) before the Charlestown Planning Commission
On Wednesday, May 28, at a well-attended meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a major land development proposed on Ross Hill Road under the state’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Act. The meeting was a Pre-Application Conference, which is held before a formal application is submitted. Details from the meeting and a video are in this post.
The Town Council repealed the ordinance in its entirety on May 27. Going forward, Charlestown will not charge developers impact fees for new development at a time when a new state law allows developers to force ten times the number of houses allowed by Charlestown’s zoning into new developments. At the meeting, as part of a very lively debate about the issues, Councilors Steve Stokes and Rippy Serra expressed that they are in favor of bringing back impact fees in the future.
When: Wednesday, May 28 at 7 p.m.
Where: Charlestown Town Hall, 4540 South County Trail, Charlestown
What: Pre-application meeting with the Charlestown Planning Commission for this development proposal
A portion of this parcel is currently a sand-and-gravel operation with the rest forest and wetlands.
When: Tuesday, May 27 at 7 p.m.
Where: Charlestown Town Hall
What: A public hearing to discuss this question and the Zoning Ordinance amendments proposed, which, if adopted, would revoke the town’s Capital Facilities Impact Fees Ordinance.
Parts of the new 2030 housing plan roughly follow Land Use 2025, but the assigned housing production numbers in the plan reverse the goals of Land Use 2025 and enforce the continued population movement toward the more rural areas, with its related loss of forest, farms, wildlife habitat, and natural beauty.
Most cities and towns in Rhode Island are “incentivized” to provide 10% of their year-round housing as low or moderate-income housing (LMIH). The “incentive” is that in towns without 10% deed-restricted, affordable units, developers can file development proposals known as “Comprehensive Permits” that allow them to build at much higher densities than zoning or environmental objectives would usually allow as long as 25% of their units are LMIH.
New housing must be supported by clean drinking water both in quantity and quality. The failure to plan for a safe and steady supply of drinking water can have catastrophic impacts. Any housing that will rely on onsite wells for their sole source of drinking water must be low density.
This development is being proposed under new state legislation that requires that the “density bonus for a project which provides at least twenty-five percent (25%) low- and moderate-income housing shall be at least three (3) units per acre”. Three dwelling units per acre is considered a high risk for potable water, but the legislation is not based in science.
Amendments proposed by the Affordable Housing Commission would encourage the seasonal use of Accessory Dwelling Units, make it harder for tenants to find year-round housing, make the units less affordable, and increase impacts in coastal pond neighborhoods where nitrogen levels in groundwater are already too high.
This level of growth in such a short time is unprecedented for our town. These new 499 units do not include the additional units in other new subdivisions that have been approved and do not include any ADUs that will be approved. This growth is the result of state legislation, but the current Town Council didn’t join with other rural towns to oppose the legislation or seek any solutions. Adopting a “more housing at any cost” strategy really does eventually have a cost.
The 2021 Charlestown Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the town-owned properties on Niantic Highway and Ross Hill Road and the former Kenyon Dye property between Rt 2 and RT112 as Open Space/Conservation. At the October 28 Town Council meeting, the Council voted to proceed with a plan to try to develop these for affordable housing by determining where housing could be built. If the properties are developed, the Comprehensive Plan will have to be changed to designate them for residential development.
We have created a community characterized by protected land, but development is still proceeding at more than 5 times the rate of preservation; still our political opponents see land conservation as a threat to population growth!
I’ve been elected to the Planning Commission since 1998, and I watched the Commission for ten years before that. In all that time, not a single person who was a neighbor of a large residential subdivision spoke in favor of the proposed development, and most asked that it not be approved. If residents were getting what they wanted, land would not be developed, but approvals of residential development have far more to do with state law and property rights than residents’ desires. My story can illustrate what can be done, however to preserve the land next door that you might love.