Over-Development And Loss Of Local Control

The goals identified at the September 10 meeting were:

• Build a shared, evidence-based picture of aquifer stress across our communities — grounded in science and in your own experience.
• Hear from communities and institutions across the region about what they’re seeing and what questions they can’t yet answer.
• Collectively name the problem and build the foundation for a formal regional assessment.
• Understand what comes next and how you can stay involved.

When: Thursday, September 10 from 5 pm to 7 pm
Where: Kettle Pond Visitor Center, 50 Bend Road, Charlestown
Who: Hosted by the Charlestown Climate Resilience Commission (CCRC)

Join the CCRC for the kickoff of a Regional Groundwater Resilience Assessment. How much water can our aquifer sustainably provide, and will that water remain safe to drink, now and as conditions change?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 […]