Protecting our groundwater will involve preserving enough land for our septic systems to treat wastewater and for the rainwater to re-charge aquifers and thus will involve protecting more open space, careful use of impervious surfaces, and reasonable control over the density of our growth. The failure to learn these lessons could be very challenging and expensive for Charlestown.
Charlestown’s State Senator Victoria Gu along with Town Planners and Planning Commissions statewide worked to craft an Accessory Dwelling Unit Law that allowed ADUs while at the same time worked to protect the Coastal Ponds and other sensitive environmental areas from excessive nitrogen pollution. Senator Gu needs to hear from constituents to urge her to push for her bill (S-2630) that allows ADUs while still protecting groundwater and drinking water, rather than the House bill which represents a very real threat to the Coastal Ponds and groundwater throughout the town.
Rhode Island’s shortage of housing that is affordable is blamed on decades of insufficient home construction. While that may be true generally for the state, home construction has proceeded apace in Charlestown. Between 1970 and 2020, Rhode Island’s population grew from 946,725 to 1,097,379 – a 15.9% increase in population. In those same decades, Charlestown’s population grew from 2,863 to 7,997 – a 179% increase.
Charlestown’s Zoning Ordinance contained a simple and fair method of determining setbacks for substandard lots. Replacing that with the state mandated formula will result in nonsense calculations, an increase in neighbor conflicts and a decrease in public safety.
When : Tuesday, February 6th at 6 p.m.
Where: Westerly Town Hall Council Chambers, 45 Broad St (Second Floor), Westerly
What: The Westerly Planning Board will hear comments on a proposal to build a 2,300-unit housing complex adjacent to Winnapaug Pond, in Westerly. Message from the Salt Ponds Coalition and other details in post.
As a vacation destination, areas near Watchaug and our saltwater ponds could be especially impacted. Also, developers of new subdivisions would be able to add a second dwelling unit to each lot, doubling the number of houses in their subdivisions. In short, Charlestown’s zoning would be thrown to the wind in favor of state control, and the number of dwelling units possible in town could conceivably double.
Surface water and groundwater in Charlestown already experience significant adverse effects from development … increased density of development invariably results in increased nitrate-nitrogen and pathogens from wastewater and stormwater, even with the most diligent application of best management practices.
Testimony was given by experts Jim Riordan of Weston and Sampson, a planner and water expert; Lorraine Joubert, a water expert at URI; Matt Dowling, the Town’s Wastewater Manager and Environmental Scientist; and Jane Weidman our professional and experienced Town Planner. They focused mainly on the important benefits of undisturbed land, and the reduction of impervious surfaces to benefit quantity and quality of groundwater.
When: Tuesday, August 29 at 6 p.m.
Where: Charlestown Town Hall
What: Town Council meeting to discuss changes to the existing subdivision ordinance that will allow developers to encroach on wetland systems and other sensitive areas. Impacted adversely by these changes would be what are called perimeter wetlands, areas that protect wetlands, and forested areas that together cleanse groundwater (the source of our drinking water), control flooding, reduce surface runoff into water bodies, and provide habitat for wildlife. These changes would place the burden of fixing the adverse impacts of irresponsible development on the taxpayers of Charlestown.
As the Town Council works to weaken Charlestown’s development regulations and remove local environmental protections, the legislature enacted many new land use laws that will also weaken environmental protections. This article from ecoRI News discusses some of those state legislative changes. “By erasing the part about protecting the environment in a significant manner, the General Assembly misses a key point about public health and neighborhood well-being: If we don’t protect the environment, we can’t protect ourselves.”
The new ordinance eliminates the requirement that open space contain any upland (developable areas), in spite of the fact that developers of major subdivisions have been required to set aside upland areas while clustering their lots since 1988. The number of lots that a developer has available to develop has not been reduced by this requirement, but the negative environmental impact of new residential development has been reduced. There is wide agreement that this method has worked.
UPDATE: This week the Rhode Island Legislature did pass this bill that eliminates a public process for many land development projects. We’ll have more about this in the future.
Excluding neighbors and the general public from participation and even knowledge of developments that can change the landscape and character of our community may save developers a little meeting time, but it is not good government or good environmental policy. It is certainly not democratic.
The new Town Council majority has, suddenly, proposed drastically changing this long-standing, well-tested ordinance that protects the environment in order to provide “choice” for developers. In addition, the choice that will be provided to developers by the proposed changes will also greatly reduce developers’ costs by allowing them to design their subdivisions essentially as they please.
How municipalities respond to the demand for housing has significant consequences not only on community character but also residents’ quality of life and the resources they depend upon for their drinking water, livelihood, and recreational pursuits.
The proposed changes overrule local regulations and effectively eliminate single family zoning in Charlestown. This increase in overall housing density is being proposed for Charlestown without any assessment of the cumulative potential impacts of the increased septage on groundwater, drinking water, and the coastal ponds and other water bodies. Putting no limit on the number of bedrooms and allowing any lot to create a new additional dwelling unit that can be used as a summer rental will impact coastal areas especially.
Multiple bills proposed in this legislative session claim to be about affordable housing, but all that any of them achieve is an increase in the number of market-rate housing units. Increasing supply might work to lower housing costs in some communities, but it hasn’t worked yet in coastal towns. Charlestown is within 3 hours of over 25 million people. The supply of affluent people willing to pay high prices for homes and short or long-term rentals will consume the increase in housing production.
The Southeast New England Program Network (SNEP) hosted a webinar in early March to offer solutions for the difficult problem of balancing housing needs with the protection of clean water. Increased housing growth will have a direct impact on Charlestown’s groundwater quality. State regulations alone are inadequate to protect water quality.
The increase in overall housing density is being proposed for Charlestown without any assessment of the cumulative potential impacts of the increased septage on groundwater, drinking water, and the coastal ponds and other water bodies. Putting no limits on the number of bedrooms and allowing any lot to create an additional new short-term rental will impact coastal areas especially.
Out of the 39 cities and towns, Charlestown had the 14th highest number of new homes. When existing population is factored in, we had nearly the highest rate of growth. Despite this growth, our political opposition claims that Charlestown is growing too slowly, that our regulations are burdensome, and that we do too much to conserve Charlestown’s natural resources.
Cynthia Drummond reports on the pace of growth in Charlestown and the impacts on everything from the Zoning Department, to the Planning Commission, to our Coastal Ponds and even drinking water.
Charlestown is seeing a surge in development applications that will result in a level of growth not seen in over 20 years. We may reach a level of development applications that will be impossible for the Planning Department and Planning Commission to review. Impossible or not, state law requires that we review and make decisions within a set number of days.
In 2013 and 2016, the Rhode Island Legislature passed bills that allow unbuildable perimeter wetlands and steeply sloped land to be included in determining buildable lot sizes. Lots that have large areas of wetland buffer have smaller buildable areas and create conflicts with wetland protection.
This post is to update those who may not have seen the recent local newspaper article about the Planning Commission’s decision at its July 25 meeting.
On July 25 the Charlestown Planning Commission did not approve the applicant’s Master Plan for a 7,500-square-foot Dollar Store proposed for Cross’ Mills. The vote to deny was unanimous.
George Tremblay: “Communications towers are not admired as works of art, but they are a necessity in protecting the public welfare. Several already exist in the area, and it has not been made evident why new hardware attached to one of the existing towers could not satisfy the need for public safety. Erection of new towers calls for the utmost discretion if we are to preserve the beauty of our landscape.”
On June 18 the Rhode Island Legislature passed another version of the so called “Dry Lands Bill” that “provides that wetland buffers not be excluded from the calculation of buildable […]
This spring the House and Senate passed bills taking away a town’s right to deduct steep slopes from the calculation of development potential on a parcel of land. Our State […]
This betrayal of effort is a disgrace and should serve as a caution to any community entertaining cooperation with RI Housing. The AH law and its overseer need close examination for failed policies and mismanagement. Towns deserve better for their investment of effort, and the public deserves better for its investment of hard-earned dollars to help those in need.
The steep slopes bill. This bill is on the fast track towards passage in committee and in each branch of the legislature.
E-mail your Senator and Representative and tell them to oppose these bills.
It was a stroke of genius by whoever thought to give the “Low and Moderate Income Housing Act” the nickname of “Affordable Housing”. The nickname manages to be both friendly and vague, a perfect combination to shield against critical challenge.
There has been much controversy over implementation of the affordable housing law in rural areas, because it is driven by state-imposed high-density housing contrary to local zoning. Is performance of the law adequate compensation for the loss of local control over zoning and land management?