5/28/25 EP Zoning

Good afternoon. I call this workshop uh to to order. And first order of business is to ask Madame Clerk to please call the role of council members present.

Yes sir.

Councilman Fogerty Councilman Lawson, Council Vice President Rigo here Councilwoman Souza, and Council President Rod here.

The record show there are two members of the council present. Just going to lower this volume. I'm hearing feedback. Is that a little better? Uh so this uh is a a public workshop. It was advertised appropriately and there will be no formal voting tonight. Uh we had to hear from uh professional consultants who've been working for uh quite a while on on this project. And basically while they

will explain the the logistics uh there are state laws that we have to codify as a city as a city council and then there are other things within zoning that are up for uh discussion and we've invited uh community to take part throughout. So tonight is just the start of the conversation and we go through some of the recommendations and what I would ask is for the presenters who are here tonight

for the benefit of the record and anyone here and watching and maybe watching the live streaming if um you could just identify yourself first name and position and then we'll we'll get started shortly after that. So, I'll start with uh on on my left across the way there.

Hello. Good evening. My name is Peter Friedri. I'm here with Libra Planners uh with my colleague Kim who's uh to my left who you'll hear from next. And when we go through our presentation, we'll talk a little bit more about how we came to do this work for the city.

Good evening. My name is Kim Solerno and I'm the principal of Libra Planners, the consulting firm that's helping East Providence with technical assistance for housing zoning.

Thank you. Welcome.

I'm Keith Bryan's director of planning and economic development for the city.

And Patrick Hanner, I'm the principal planner for the city and the planning department.

Thank you. Thank you all. And we have our uh deputy city clerk is with us uh this evening. I am expecting uh at least another council member to come forward uh come to the meeting.

Um he's running a little late but we we do not we're not required to have a legal quorum for this uh workshop purpose. We'll also have uh the city solicitor uh here with us shortly. So, we're going to keep it informal and we'll start. I would just invite the uh participants that you can move the mics if you have to. Just be careful on the cords. Some of them are short uh cords.

Uh Peter, I think you've got enough room to pull that one in front of you more.

Um you should be comfortable. And with that, I'll turn it over to our uh consultant for introductions and or president of the company. Thank you.

So, good evening uh and thank you for having us. Uh my name is Kim Solerno and I'm um from Libro Planners. Um I'm going to do a few things tonight. I'm going to introduce you to our firm and the uh grant that the city of East Providence received to uh to for us to perform this work for you. Um I'm going to tell you a little bit about the history of our

project. I'm going to tell you a little bit about the policy considerations that we have been thinking about and talking about over the last year and a half. I'm going to walk you through some ideas that uh we've explored with other uh municipalities including Newport and I'm going to just give you a foundation of uh things to think about uh that inform the uh zoning uh decisions that have uh

that will be uh presented tonight and uh discussed tonight. So with that, Quentyn, can you please move on to the next slide?

Okay. So to begin with uh the state in 2003 uh established a grant program administered through Rhode Island Housing which is an entity that functions in many ways to support affordable housing throughout the state.

Uh the state used the organization to distribute funds to municipalities to uh provide technical assistance uh for the cities and towns to adopt uh legislative changes that had been recently uh enacted by the state legislature. So you may recall in 2003 the speaker got together a housing package and he created many changes in order to uh stimulate development and support additional housing. Some of you

may not know that uh Rhode Island is in last place for creating housing in the um in the country and our population is is growing. So it's something that needs to be fixed.

Um the this the Rhode Island housing created a consultant roster and in the name of efficiency it asked consultants to uh to uh present their credentials and show that they could hit the ground running with this technical assistance.

So we as consultants provided that information and soon after the laws were uh enacted, we got on board with a number of municipalities to help uh to support those zoning changes. And Peter, my my colleague, is a city planner by uh training, but he's also uh an attorney, a land use attorney. We did not provide legal advice, but we had the expertise to inform the policy decisions and also

assist with uh with language for uh for housing policy. Um can I can I um interject keeping it in informal so you don't mind. Um, for the benefit of of the public, uh, this is a complicated process at at best. Uh, Council Vice President Rigo and I have met and looked over this and, uh, talked with our attorneys and and department heads. And so, this wasn't a a project for some lay person, council members to

just throw up throw together it and it was expensive. So what was the cost to city taxpayers if there was other than the grant? There was no cost. Uh so this is I I I think that's important for Rhode Islanders to understand. It was administered through the state. Peter, what was the origin of the funds?

So the it's a conveyance tax on home sales above, I believe, $800,000 AC across the state. Um so it's it's wealthy real estate transactions that are funding this um state technical assistance to ease housing development at the municipal level. Yeah. And it's worth uh noting that the legislative changes were mandated for the municipalities. So, uh, some towns didn't actually seek the, uh, the

assistance and they did it themselves with staff and then I think a lot of them regretted that afterwards because the money was available to every municipality. So, a good portion of what we'll hear tonight are mandated by law.

Yes. Correct. Okay. Yeah. So, uh, we can, uh, we we worked with Keith to develop the grant proposal and develop the the scope of work essentially. So, next slide, please. So, uh, this is just a little introduction to us. Um, I I'm the lead.

I have a training, uh, a background in architecture and in planning. Um, I served on the planning board in Newport.

Uh, I was also a college professor for 25 years. Um, and I also had an architecture firm. That's my background.

Uh, Steve Irvine, who's also my husband and a business partner, was a biologist.

He did all our mapping and data. Um, that was particularly useful for the um inclusionary zoning work that we did for you. Um, and then Peter, our uh law and policy expert. Uh, next slide, please. Uh we have actually conducted a number of events uh to help uh solicit public input from East Providence residents.

This is a photograph from one of those events.

Uh the uh this slide actually talks about the scope of work that Keith essentially developed and we helped shape out uh shape for the grant. But a big piece of this was the inclusionary zoning ordinance which you'll learn about tonight.

um the the 2023 laws asked us to look at the land use regulation and revisions.

So we assisted with the preliminary work that uh was started in house. Um and similarly with comprehensive land land development and uh subdivision regulations. Um we decided to review the zoning ordinance comprehensively and we explored uh transitoriented uh development. Next slide please. So this is a little bit of basic th this slide is actually more for the general public just to understand why

it's necessary to do this. um from the uh RO uh Roger Williams or Housing Works Rhode Island uh fact book that is put out by an organization at Roger Williams. Uh they actually aggregate uh economic and housing data and they put it in this book so that the people like you leaders can understand what are the conditions on the ground. Um, and one thing we've learned is that um, 18

to 24 year olds are uh, deeply impacted by housing shortages. This is something that people in leadership positions may not um, completely appreciate because we tend to be older and more comfortable.

Um, that surprisingly educational attainment is not consistent with um, housing access and affordability.

um and that it really is a looming problem with the younger generation. Uh so EP housing facts uh this these facts actually come from the 2023 uh fact book. It's a little bit obsolete but this is when we actually started the grant. So it's the the data that informed our initial discussion and at that time the median household income for EPU was 65,16 and 27% of homeowners and 50% of renters

in East Providence are cost burdened. It's a complicated way of saying that in considering all the metrics, it's just too expensive to pay for housing for most of the people. Um the median home price at the time was $365,000. Um increasing 35% over the last 6 years. At this point that that might seem quaint um because of course the cost of housing has gone up. Um and that one of the greatest indicators of

the lack of production of housing was how few uh permits were issued and thus the need for these uh technical changes that could make it easier for people to get permits to build. Next slide please.

Yes question please before you can you go back to that last slide please? Yes.

Quentyn can you go back please?

Where by chance, where are we, as you state here, 27% of homeowners and 50% of renters in each province are cost burdened. Where is that compared to the rest of the state? If you can I mean, you have an idea. I'm not, you know, you don't have to totally I I don't uh have that for you right now. We can certainly look it up and send it to you. I I um the

information we heard at a forum earlier today about housing uh continues to be a pressing pressing issue for the state was that if you make $103,000 a year as a household, you cannot afford to buy a home anywhere in the state of Rhode Island, which includes East Providence.

So the the price of housing has gotten to the point where what we considered um middle class and even above that are having a hard time affording housing.

And the last bullet, obviously in 2022, we're a pretty developed as far as building permits, single family or multifamily. We're a pretty dense densely populated uh city. Where are we compared to other maybe densely populated areas like a Cranston or Warick uh cities? You know, obviously their population is, you know, we're number five. Where are we compared to Cranston, Warick, and say

even Pucket? Uh, you know, this the three in front of us. Your your planning staff might have better information, but I I think East Providence is already a leader. You've seen that with the waterfront district and some of the more recent housing developments, uh, particularly in the commercial centers in the city. Um, so I know Providence has made a lot of moves in recent years

to try and attract more development and is seeing the benefits of that. I think uh, East Providence might be a close number two, uh, in terms of how it compares to other cities in the state.

Yeah, that is my general sense too and and from information that I've seen is that we're doing relatively well compared to other communities in the state as as far as approving new building permits over the past few years, but the need persists. Next slide, please.

So, I I don't think I need to go through this uh line by line with you, but just suffice it to say that there, you know, we did consider the statistics for East Providence. I mean, we we looked at a lot of different municipalities. We were in Newport, we were in Barington, we were in Foster, we were in Paka. You know, every community has a different set of conditions on the ground. Um we

rec we recognize that but these are the particular statistics uh that speak to uh the socioeconomic conditions in East Providence. Um your report tonight, this was provided to the city administration.

Is this what we have online? I know we have some information on the city website or is this the first time this is up for public uh viewing? Keith, do you know? I don't think I don't think this was put online. And I think this is just uh presented for the first time tonight as far as these slides here. Is that something that could be sent to?

Absolutely. Okay. So, so the data has been public for years. Um and we have used the sort of typical sources that people use for the data. This this presentation is essentially a present presentation that helps to describe the policy uh the policy ideas that you need to think about. And and summarizing is fine going forward. Okay. Yeah, just a big takeaway here I think is nationally the change has been 50

years ago you had a lot of sevenperson households, families with a lot of children and nowadays households are much smaller a lot of those single person two person households. So even if you have the same population there's a desire for more housing units given that you have a smaller number of people in that household maybe the housing units can be smaller onebedroom twobedroom as

opposed to fourbedroom that they may have been historically. So the population is aging, the the household size is decreasing. Um more people want to live by themselves. It's an issue. Um but it it also creates pressure on the housing market. So and also um Mr.

Permental, you're in charge of if there's any tiffs going on here with the solicitor and the vice president. You notice I seated them side by side. So, um, the sergeant couldn't make it, so I appoint you in in charge. Um, with that, please continue. Okay.

Um, do you want to move on to the next slide, please? Yes.

Okay. So, uh, there. So, we came in to help with the 2023 mandates and then in 2024 a series of uh mandates came out and we helped with that a little bit as well.

Uh and the 2024 mandates include um non-conforming sites revert to the nearest minimum standard. Um is that clear what that means? Should I explain it?

Okay. So, say there's a a zone that requires um 10,000 square foot lots and in that zone is a 7,000 foot lot. Well, that property will actually have to conform to the 5,000 foot lot zone instead of the 10,000 foot lot.

So, uh, it means that the rules are relaxed for a number of properties that exist in zones that are that might be overzone for that property. Um, in some communities that can be significant because there are many um non-conforming properties in certain zones. That's something that we've talked about with uh the EP staff and there's not a complete sense right now of how many lots are um are non-conforming. So, that's

something that we're thinking about right now. Uh in other communities, we've actually uh performed the task of looking at how many non-conforming properties they there are because it was obviously a problem for the town and they asked us to do it.

um additional state uh requirements, DPR, development plan review uh becomes uh an administrative tool. That means what was once um the authority of the planning commission or the planning board, now the um staff can actually do it. The idea is that if the approval is um not as impactful then we can allow staff to facilitate approval so that so that problem projects can happen um

Um establish administrative development plan review uh to uh supplant zoning review. So this is uh giving uh Keith a framework for doing that. Um and then providing development incentives. So going one extra step to like encourage encourage housing development. Next slide please.

When you say that uh are you talking about tax incentive breaks over a period of time? Is that something that you have under that oh item? We did not um weigh into that there. We we speak to an existing um system in East Providence where there's an ordinance that allows I believe an administrative approval and then an opportunity to petition the council for a higher level of approval.

That's not to say that the council couldn't explore other avenues for facilitating development that are independent of the technical work that we do. Um so this is an introduction into housing typologies. This is something that we um we talked about we this with a number of communities just trying to get them to understand that there's a lot of different ways to think about multifamily housing and there's no

one-sizefits-all and um certain typologies might be better suited for different communities and the the types that are highlighted in red are the types that already exist in um in East Providence.

in um in numbers. Okay, next slide, please. Okay, so this talks a little bit about the um the history of our work with the planning um planning staff. Uh the slide on the light the right illustrates that that uh phenomenon we were talking about about household sizes getting um smaller. Uh this slide illustrates a way to think about additional housing within the the housing uh fabric that

you already have. Uh there's a lot of push back throughout communities about changing community character. This is a way to think about housing that doesn't change community character. Uh use the housing you already have. change the way uh housing is regulated so that uh more units can be found in the same number of houses. Um again, household sizes are decreasing. Uh we could preserve

community character uh increase options.

Um it's important to to recognize that the two groups that seem to be uh impact in an outsized manner are the elderly and the young. um elderly are being prohibited from making choices uh that they might want to make because they really have nowhere to go and the young just don't have the opportunity at all. Uh next slide please. Uh so this is a slide that talks about a strategy that we were exploring

early in the process and something that we discussed with the planning staff.

Uh it's exploring multifamily housing is something that um that would help every community create more housing. Um we mapped potential locations to to place more multif family housing. One of the things I'd like to say about it is that in many cases, people are already actually using the property in that way and it would just be legitimating the practices that are already in place. So,

for example, there may be a house that for all intents of purposes is a single family house, but it actually uh functions as a multi. Um, next slide, please. Uh, this is a slide uh of an an architectural development by a local uh Rhode Island uh design firm. Um, we're looking for typologies that might be new, that might Oh, do you know the project?

Well, it's a good one, right? So, um, yes. So, the townhouse house typology is something that we think could uh encourage the kind of um placemaking and support the kind of uses that are in need and desired.

Um the uh this t we think this typology actually suits the EP physical environment um and that it fills a niche for uh smaller housing. I mean one of the problems with big families big houses is it's not supporting small houses sizes multiple units.

So again what I was looking at in in visioning and and maybe this if you maybe you have the answer not have the answer are we looking are you saying I'm estimating that's probably like a 6 to 700 square foot might be a little bigger a little bigger maybe 800 yeah accommodate two to three bedrooms I mean obviously not a lot of storage space so you're not being a hoarder and everything but Yeah, because

I I've done some work having had a my father being in that business, God rest his soul, and you know, coming up with ideas of six 700 square foot houses that can fit two and three bedrooms and everything. So, that's what I was just trying to see if you knew what the uh It looks I mean, just looking at it looks like about 800. Okay. So, it wasn't off

by that far. Yeah. I I don't know. This particular development um I know it had a mix of unit sizes, so I don't know. in this image which sizes those are but it is in East Greenwich if you want to go take a look at it. Get me the address after I will. Yeah, my warehouse is close by. Great. Next slide please.

Um so this is something that we considered early on. Uh this is a photograph of Riverside and it's small lot zoning. It's a um it's really the essence of uh the zoning reform for housing. Um and in a place like uh East Providence, there are already places that that essentially have this and we're suggesting that um that East Providence like continue with this idea.

Um Riverside it already it already is small lot zoned essentially. Um, small lot zoning serves uh the additional function of really creating community.

It's kind of it's a good place to live.

Um, it's great for young families. It's the kind of thing that isn't being built today and could be, you know, a good approach. Next slide, please.

Um and then again thinking about placemaking and housing and recognizing that you know for for comprehensive planning it's really important to think about a lot of things uh simultaneously.

So in our work with many communities we might be thinking about economic development we might be thinking about um historic preservation a lot of different things at once. Um, and so it's important to think about, you know, what what are the assets in East Proidence? East Province has some some great small housing that already exists, and I think you should build on your strengths.

Um, and some communities have a very active heads uh health equity zone. the small lots and the small housing is actually good for promoting walkability and uh healthy lifestyles. So, it's again something that we think, you know, kills two birds with one stone. Next slide, please. Question. Uh when when you looked into all of this, do you have an an opinion or feeling on the amenities that East Providence offers? for

instance, th this would would have to be in concert with a community that offers good recreation and open spaces. Um, you're obviously not talking about putting a house on every square inch of grass in the city. Um, so what do you have an opinion on the city overall? And it's uh I I to let you know I I think there's a nice blending is important.

Yes, small housing is is great and but we also could use a few places like we already have. I'm not saying we're going to get more, but like a Kettle Point, Phillips Landing, you know, some bigger homes increasing the tax base, but then also that smaller row unit you you showed has promise for so weability a number of places that have like environmental sensitivity or you know waterheds that shouldn't be uh

impacted um or places where there's a lot of uh conservation. So we do understand that it's important to have balance and it's important to provide uh opportunity for housing in places where other opportunities exist. Um one of the things that we explored with the planning group was a transit oriented development and that means you locate the densest housing on the busiest but uh bus routes so that people can get to

work.

Um yes I mean we are we are familiar with the um the geographic variety in the town and the sense that there's a kind of strong urban core there's a historic area with this earlier development pattern and then they're you know outlying more um bedroom type communities. So yeah I mean of course we thought of that. Thank you. Um next slide please.

So, um, we just included a few t uh slides to talk about the analysis that we did with Newport. Uh, we worked with a a planning developer that had like some very specific ideas about what she wanted to explore. And she was, uh, convinced that that a number of zones were overzoned. And we we have our background in Newport. And in that community, 80% of the properties are non-conforming. It's kind of a um a

regulatory nightmare because anybody that wants to do anything to their house has to go through the process. So, uh what we did for with them is we actually looked at the zones. We looked at the regulations that cover the zones and then we looked at the properties that were constructed in those zones and we asked the question, does the property match the zone? And in many cases, we discovered that the properties are

indeed um overzone for what exists. In other words, if you liked what happened in downtown Newport on the water, you couldn't build it today with the rules that they have. So, that's one way to think about. Um, next slide, please.

Um, administrative development plan review. Again, this idea is something that we explored with that uh that city, but it's really important to maintain a uh strong planning stra staff to do that. You're lucky you have a lot of bodies in Providence uh in East Providence. Not all communities have the wherewithal to support the planning department in that way. Since you've chosen to do that, you might as well use

them. I you have a number of planners on staff that could really ease the regulatory burden for the community. Are you sure about that? They're asking for more help.

But sorry, continue.

You saw three or four people scurry out of here.

Um okay, next slide, please. Uh so this is the slide I mentioned earlier, projections and setbacks. Um, one of the effects of having a stringent uh law about setbacks is you get architecture that is basically a box and not that interesting. And if you uh write the the regulations in such a way you can permit and even encourage distinctive architecture. And that's something that we think because Providence does have

some historic architecture, you would benefit from that approach.

that east sorry east province um more carrot less stick that's something that I always encourage next slide please um so these are the initial recommendations that we made to this community um of course we have to follow through with the legislative mandates and that's something that Peter will talk a little bit later when he presents the actual zoning. Um we think that uh permitting

two and three family in these three zones would be very helpful. It's a kind of simple fix that could really open the door for the kind of the the number of new units that would really help. Um and then of course considering community character and the you know the the condition of the place while we do that.

Next slide please. Um so about two and three family homes. Yes they already exist here. Um it's the housing type that's really needed by the people that are housing challenged. Um it supports a renting community which is also important and it is sort of the most effective in giving the numbers that you need and uh what we try to show with this slide is that there's this perception that

affordable housing is I don't know what the example is here but I used to live in Chicago and it was igo and that was this like horror 40story off uh affordable housing building that was just uh sort of location of social decay that doesn't exist today. There are ways to um create affordability in the community that can be harmonious, attractive, and supportive of the people who live here. Next slide, please.

And then of course, Peter will walk you through the inclusionary uh zoning that we've talked about. And again, um, we can make inclusionary affordable housing that is attractive, that has a low concentration of poverty because it's, uh, inclusionary zoning and that it has a an approach to design that's appropriate for this community. And the next slide, please. Um, and this is something that

we are also exploring is transit oriented development. The state the state just recently defined uh eligibility. Um we've looked at East Providence Transit um and we've that that's what um this map shows and we've thought about where you could include um transit oriented development to support both uh the existing um transit and the relationship of li uh workers to their residents. And just for the a note

to the council and the public, this would be the route 78 line which goes over the Washington Bridge up Taton A to Pucket A and Newport A uh in Pucket. And that's the the where we're looking at as a potentially eligible line under the 2020 state transit master plan. Yeah. So to just to step back, what transitoriented development is is um identifying high frequency transit or development and providing incentives for

that development. But now in East Providence, most of the transit would be on our main thorough fairs like Pucket Avenue, maybe Warren Avenue, Broadway, the Broadway, they're already really developed with with housing we don't have. So would that not apply as much?

Um, so this is a it's primarily a state grant program to uh provide funding for developers and municipalities to encourage dense housing development in those transit corridors. So we're waiting for the housing department to release regulations, but the the goal the state goal is to make it attractive to direct state funding to those areas.

Another question when you mentioned the uh as an example the three deckers and there's been a lot of um conversation about people would like to see them again come into prominence but and this might be beyond the scope of what you were doing but h how do we answer the question that the existing three deckers the rents are unaffordable for a lot of people?

They are for young families. They are for almost anybody. Uh their rent for a second and third floor apartment um as we know it. The three bedroomedroom apartments that are fairly spacious cost more than most mortgages.

Uh is is there any um way to address that through zoning? I I don't So I just want to say a three decker sold in my neighborhood for $1.3 million. That's what I'm saying. I understand. Um I mean the basic principle is increasing supply is going to stabilize the prices.

Yes. I think also inclusionary zoning um is an opportunity for additional affordable units. Um and also the triple decker up tomorrow might be um smaller smaller to make it more affordable.

Well, I would add too at this time that we we did have two other participants join us. Uh city solicitor uh Mr.

Marcelo is here and also Mayor Dilva is here and I'll ask them at some point when you finish a little more of your summary if they need to add to this as this is a joint this is a one city operation so I I want to hear from them as well but continue I think this might we might be at the last line about it oh yeah any questions at some point tonight will we get a

definitive list of these are the mandates you have to do it. There's no question about it. And then these are not mandates recommend.

So, so I think we we're probably produced about a thousand pages of Yeah.

materials um for the city. What's in front of you tonight is a a small portion of that. So, uh one document is in I think an 83 page um list of zoning amendments that the city staff um have discussed early and believe that is required by state law. Um and that's the priority for the council to consider. It needs to go to the planning board uh for recommendation um at some point. But the

the idea is to prioritize the council's consideration of that. Um we also have in front of you an inclusionary zoning ordinance um that the administration uh believes is a priority. Um so that as this additional housing development comes uh it is also providing the types of housing that the city populace needs.

Um, beyond that, we talked a little bit about it. There's this opportunity for transit oriented development. Um, and also, uh, we did develop a new codification on the zoning ordinance that would change the organization of it to make it more user friendly and also provide some of the changes that we've been talking about this evening. And as I stated at the outset, uh, for those who may be joining in a little bit

later, uh, this isn't it tonight. We're not deciding. There are no votes tonight. This is uh beginning of a public conversation and you know we we have some time. Um Mayor does Silva um you have a little bit of time on the clock. Would you like to make a statement? I'll slide this down. Sir, first I want to start off by saying thank you to uh the city council and our planning department and the associates

from Libra. Um it it really has taken a lot of work and input from all uh from all of you to craft this together. And one of the things that I'm most proud of is the collaboration between myself and our administration and the city council uh leadership. Um we all hear all the time about how how out of control rents have become and each province is unique in that we have a lot of property that

can be developed. We have a lot of former brown fields that can be developed. Um, a lot of that sits within the uh East Province Waterfront District Commission, which already has a 10% inclusionary zoning. Uh, during my time as mayor, um, I had the pleasure of getting to know Tina Ganette from Real Access, um, Motivates Progress, and I got that right. Okay. and uh and and she opened my eyes up to what uh fully

physically accessible housing uh is and why it's such an important thing for our community. And it's not just for somebody who may be having issues with mobility now, but as we age, as we age, we start to feel, you know, these aches and pains and sometimes we become less mobile. So, in discussion with the council president, vice president, uh, councilman Bogodi, and our planning department, Peter, we crafted what I

think is a unique and first of its kind, uh, zoning ordinance that, uh, would have to get approval from the council.

Uh, and that would not only require 20% of affordable housing on any development over 10 units or more, but additionally 20% of those uh units would have to be um fully physically accessible. So, that's pretty exciting.

I don't think there's any other municipality that has that type of of requirement. So, I want to thank the council. I want to thank Peter. I just want to come here and offer my thank you, my my appreciation uh for working collaboratively on this very important issue. Um I feel strongly uh that with all of the potential development now this would not apply to existing developments that have already been

permitted for instance the stuff going on at Metac and some other big projects that have already been permitted but in the future and we know there's going to be more development in the future now you would require 20% of portable and that would open up the door uh to allowing some of our residents to maybe continue living in the community they've been in for the last 80 90 years. Uh so

thank you council president, vice president Peter uh Keith and the members of the uh city staff here who have all been very important in contributing uh their input into everything that's uh coming before you today. Uh also I would be remiss if I didn't thank our great city solissa Mike Marcelo. Thank you for uh working very closely with Peter and Libra to get these things put together.

I know it's complex, not not an ex exciting topic all the time, but it's really a significant change that's going to position our city in a in a place uh to make it available to everyone so people all people of all backgrounds can live here. So, thank you all. Thank you.

So, the um the two-page inclusionary zoning document that the mayor mentioned might be easier uh and more quickly uh reviewed in this workshop than the 83page required amendments document that the public also might be more interested in the inclusionary zoning document. So, I I suggest that perhaps we review that document uh first uh and then we can dive into the uh the details of the required amendments.

Thank you. Go. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And we will continue to have a conversation with the mayor and his staff about defining what is meant by affordable. Uh that is the question we all get asked on the street corners. Yeah, you all talk about affordable housing, but what is it? And I know there are different degrees. Uh we we have things like one neighborhood housing and swap that have

come into the city with some highly successful projects. And then there is the regular affordable housing that has guidelines. It's not something that's arbitrary that it goes by income and size of family etc. So we will make sure that we make that clear.

So, do you do you have this proposal that you just out outlined the uh that the mayor talked about? Yes. Yeah. Okay.

Do you want to go through that for us?

And I'd be happy to. And I believe it's also on the screen. It's up on the screen in the audience and at home can follow along.

It looks like it. Yes.

So um this is called inclusionary zoning which is a term um that's set out in the zoning enabling actu put forth by the state legislature. So all zoning ordinances that municipalities in Rhode Island make are required to conform to that zoning enabling act. So this uh inclusionary zoning law that would require affordable housing and fully physically accessible units conforms to

that law. So that's why the ordinance is termed this way. And starting out here, the first paragraph states that any developer can take advantage of this ordinance. So if you're putting um you know a 20% really for the numbers to work, it's five units. you're doing five units, you get the benefits of the ordinance, but you're not required to follow it. Once you get to that 10 unit threshold, um there's a lot of

regulation at the state level and many municipalities um throughout the state for developments nine units and less and 10 units and more. So, that's why we picked this number. It also creates nice round numbers for the 20% figure.

Um so at that at that level um 10 units or more you're required to meet the requirements the ordinance required to have those affordable and fully physically accessible units.

So, so you're affordable by guidelines, not necessarily as some people refer to section 8, which is not much of that around anymore as a as a funding program. Uh, that's a housing voucher program. And you used to have those big um tower uh housing developments, public housing developments that were funded under that. This is not that. Um so this does not require any um federal funds to go to construct the housing and

subsidize it subsidize the the tenants.

This is um by the zoning provides that mechanism for the affordable housing to be constructed and then it's required to be maintained uh as affordable. We have in here a period of 50 years. Um also this uh second sentence in this paragraph here talks about uh not concentrating the development in any particular area of the city. The idea being to to encourage dispersement uh in many neighborhoods throughout the city

so that folks of all means and abilities can live in every part of the city. And then the second paragraph here the state has a definition of affordable housing. So we're meeting that definition. The other goal uh the state has is that 10% of the units in this in the municipality are classified as affordable. East Providence is very close to that. I think you're at about 9 and a half%. Um and there are uh

municipal regulatory benefits tied to meeting that 10% goal. So part of the goal of this ordinance is achieving that 10% goal for East Providence and also keeping East Providence above that goal in the future. So that's what this second paragraph here talks about. And then there's the subsection one which is talking about this applies to any contiguous property and you can't subdivide the property so that you're

doing nine units here, nine units there.

The idea is that it applies anytime you're getting 10 units or more. That's also subsection two there. And then that ties it to the two requirements of uh subsections four and five. And now we're at the top of page two on the copy that I have which talks about when you have a fraction. So let's say you're doing 11 units, you round up to the next whole number. And that's the common practice for when affordable

housing is required. And then subsection four is that 20% requirement for affordability.

that follows the state definition which is 80% of area median income for rental and the the rent you can charge goes up the greater number of bedrooms you have and then for home ownership that's 120% of area med area median income so it ends up being I think it's around $300,000 now for um a two-bedroom property so it's a it's pretty competitive um so I think that's the number that the council president and

the council struggles with all the time so it's the area medium income to be afforded by state or or the federal government. Yeah. And the there's a different calculation for rentals versus home ownership, right? So what are those numbers as of as of today? And they go up they depends on the number of bedrooms which is tied. So the the way the state does it is they assume one and

a half occupants per bedroom. Um so a onebedroom qualifies as a twoerson household. Um, and that that ends up being where the rents are around $1,000 um, for those smaller bedroom units and the the sale price is around $300,000 for for home ownership. So, it's not only not only tied to the area median income, it's also tied to the number of units uh, bedrooms in that house. So, it's a fluctuating number.

Uh, I I think there's a chart that the state does usually provide. We can provide that to the council so they'll have a good better idea. I think there's a chart. I could go wrong wrong with that. So you said a one-bedroom house one point the state uses 1.5 people right and they round up and it the cost would be so some that house could sell for $300,000 so to multiply that out a three a

threebedroom house could sell for 900,000 no it's not it's not all right no I was just going to just it's not a straight multiple No it is not okay I'm just a little comfortable because why am I Yeah. Yes.

Yeah. No. Um, but a one one and a half bedroom rental is about $1,000, right?

That Well, well, a rental 1.5 bedrooms would be about No, there's not not 1.5 bedrooms. So, they round up one bedroom, right? Right. The numbers currently would be two people would be rounded up to two occupancy for two, right? Am I getting this wrong? Right. No, no, right. You got it. So, the and the rent would be approximately $1,000 a month, right? affordable rent, right? That's that's what that's the rent you're

allowed to charge for that size of up to a four bedroom for comparison and maybe the council vice president would have a better idea. What does a one-bedroom apartment rent for in the city of East Proidence now? Nonaffordable. Do you think it's probably like 1,800? It's a lot more than 1,000. Yeah. 1,600. You think 168?

So, yeah. Right. There's there's a lot of policy considerations here. The state is on the cusp of changing this comprehensive permit law which allows developers to go around local zoning and propose very large developments, very dense developments. And so this ordinance is designed to give the city as much control over its destiny if that law passes or if it doesn't. Um those 80% for rental and 120% for home

ownership were set by the state law 20 25 years ago and the state has not cho chosen to amend it. We can all see the discrepancy between rental units and home ownership units. what that tends to result in developers building home ownership units, which I argue is probably a better thing because it allows folks to invest in their future and have their their monthly house payment go towards something that

they'll get back when they move out. So, I I think that as convoluted as the system is, it I think it does create a better a better neighborhood and a better city. Um but to what we've all noticed, it's a glaring difference and the state may choose to change that in the future to make it more um even between the two types of housing. And and another aspect of this could be said

uh this way that not doing this or not looking for ways of affordability would just mean the status quo is is market rate. You get what you get, right?

Right. people can get and they're getting it. You know, the ho homes are are being sold in days. Talk to realtors and they'll tell you there's no such thing as asking price anymore. rates, you know, the bidding wars and and so we we're all struggling and we're finding it hard maybe, but there are people out there that are buying homes at astronomical prices and rents people are getting them and there are a lot of

people hurting. So to do nothing here, to not find an affordable housing answer means we continue with market rates and and people suffering. And so that's why I'm in support of trying to to start the conversation. Let's do something something better than nothing. Yes. So subsection five here is the fully physically accessible requirement. We did split that between those affordable units and the market

rate units. So it's not just folks of limited means who might need accessible units. It's also folks who might be uh quite wealthy and you know your single family home is not designed for someone who has uh mobility um issues. So it's might be as simple as doorork knobs that have the the little handle on them, the lever so that you can open the door more easily, wider doors um and also you know

a ramp into your apartment so if you have issues with stairs you don't need that. Um fully physically accessible is a term of art. So, the idea here is that we're aligning with best practices um and that as those standards might change and improve, the city will stay in compliance with those and that as part of the building permit inspection process, we'll make sure we're we're meeting all of these requirements.

Commercial buildings are already instructed to ADA standards. Larger apartment buildings are, but this would go down to the single family home level if you're doing a 10 lot subdivision.

And so it really is giving opportunities that don't exist frankly anywhere in the country really where you've got single family homes that are market rate and built for folks uh who might have any sort of mobility impairment. Uh subsection six here is the requirements that you have to meet in order to follow this ordinance.

One is that these required units receive their certificate of occupancy prior to the um non required units that you might be building. So you've got this 10 unit development. Two are affordable. Two are fully physically accessible. Um of those, you know, the seven units that are not restricted, you can't get a CO on those until you've built those three units that comply, three or four units.

Um and then this subsection 6B here uh is requiring that those units be put on site. So you can't in the other part of the city put these units up. They if you're building an attractive development on Narans at Bay and you've got 10 units going in, you have to have those waterfront units, two of them be affordable and two of those be accessible.

Yeah, that that is a major piece. Uh we have a developer here and place would nameless right now that did that prior to this council taking over uh kept all the nice property together and all of a sudden bought property close by to here and didn't want to put that portable house in there. So yep, it's good for the geese. It's good for the ganders. There's also I sit on this council. There's also historically

been a practice of allowing developers to buy out of their affordable housing requirement. So, they just pay money to the city. Um the amount that the state has set is only $40,000 per unit. Uh which just doesn't cover begin to cover the cost of of doing an affordable housing development. So, this does not require payments. This does not allow, excuse me, this does not allow developers the option of paying. they

actually have to construct the units.

So, so that's important. I I'd like everyone to know that uh this this council I'll speak for myself and at least uh council vice president, we we've talked about this. We are definitely not supporting nor does this say anything about traditional tax breaks for developers. This this is a straight uh straight program that uh gives incentive to come in and and and build here, but not getting a tax break.

They're not, you know, as long as there's owner occupied um in involvement. That that's that's an advantage. And uh we're not going to do what as you've just outlined allow that is not part of this that no developer is going to be allowed to opt out by giving us a check right and saying you can put that 20% somewhere else in the city.

Yep. Uh it's a requirement. If you're going to build you you need to do this.

Okay. Just want to make that that clear.

So item six here is the the um period that the housing would be required to remain affordable. It's 50 years. The state requires a minimum of 30 and the the general consensus on what the maximum is is 99 years. So we picked it the the period here of 50

years. And then item seven, a couple just to uh highlight what the incentive is. Obviously, if you're going to require the a developer of 10 or more units to have these uh 20%, they do get an incentive to do so. So, right, that's the next item. It's not a tax incent.

Well, there there are tax incentives that exist already in the books that they they're eligible for. Right. But the it's a density bonus that they get, I think. Right. That's the next one.

Yep. 7A. Um so, this is required under the law. So in order to have this ordinance have any sort of requirement for affordable units, you have to provide the density bonus. Um that also is our mechanism that allows us to get to that goal of 10% affordable housing.

So the state requires that for every affordable unit you require, you have to allow the developer the ability to construct at least one additional unit. We had some concerns regardless of the zone. regardless of the zone and it could be a commercial zone, it could be a residential zone, but when soon as you're allowing the housing and it has you're acquiring the affordability, you have to have the

bonus units. That number has to be at least one. We had some concerns that you're making a development less profitable and therefore a developer less interested in the development, less likely to even pursue the development by requiring the affordability. So we increased that incentives a little bit up to 1.5. So that means if you have 100 units proposed for development without this ordinance, we're requiring that 20

of those units are be affordable, you then get the 1.5 on the 20 bonus. So your development becomes 130 units. and and we thought at this moment in time under the current market that would reflect the cost of constructing those affordable units. So let's say a housing unit is $400,000 now to construct. You can only sell it for $300,000. You're losing $100,000 per affordable housing unit you're building.

You're able to go on at the end there and and sell those market rate units for a little bit more money to pay for the cost of the construction of the affordable units. Here's a 10 10 unit example.

Yeah.

So 13 then. Yeah. You go from 10 to 13.

Walk us through that. Just start your 10. So Yep. So I mean I So there's you start with 10 20%. So there's eight, right? Market rate. Now you get the 1.5.

So there's three bonus units.

10%.

20 20%. That's right. So 20% is two.

Yeah. And then one and a half times two is three. So you end up with 11 units market rate and two affordable.

So you start out with 10 and you've got 13.

One and a half is based off of the 10 off of the the 20% affordable 20%. Yeah.

The bonus given affordability part.

Yeah. If you were going to get 10, 20% would have been two. And now you got 1.5 times the two, which is runs up to 13.

And if you have like an affordable housing developer come in and they're going to nonprofit, they're going to do 10 affordable units, they can build 13, they can't build 30 or whatever the the math is.

Math that gets us confused. It's a bonus on the on the affordable units that you get acquired only on the acquired ones.

Yeah. So it's it's controlled by Yes. by the city. So we won't get those housing towers that that have historically had issues. And let me ask uh Keith from your perspective um your thoughts on that. Yeah, I think the number makes sense and developing an ordinance like this, it's sort of a balancing act. Like if you make it too demanding and say, you know, you need ton of affordable units and you don't get a lot of

density, then developers will say, "Yeah, no thanks. I'll just go to the community next door and you won't get the housing instruction that you need and you won't get the extra affordability. So, we tried to do something that um struck a good balance and that 1.5 sort of speaks to that where one just didn't seem like it was enough of a density bonus.

Thank you.

So, the 7B here property tax that is a state law. There's no change to any um emissible policy with this. That's just providing notice that this state law is available. Uh and that's the same with 7C. That's a a local ordinance on tax stabilization. Just letting folks know this is available. It's not changing any of the underlying city policy in chapter 16, article 5. We're just spelling it

out for them so they don't have notice of the criteria.

That's nothing new, right? Uh 7D is parking. This is an u additional incentive. Um this is reflects the parking maximums under maximum requirements under the comprehensive permitting law. Um so this is just aligning with that. It's been shown that residents of affordable housing have less cars um than market rate housing often times as well. The occupancy in those units is restricted. So you don't tend to have

the the kids back from college that move back in with their parents. Um so that one parking space per unit requirement is there and then also as an incentive there's a reduced parking requirement for the market rate units acknowledging that with the additional density it may be more difficult to locate parking on the site.

uh 7E um we have it as an incentive but it's really an incentive for the affordable housing residents and that's that they have full access to all the amenities of the development. If there's a swimming pool they have to be allowed to have access to it just like every other resident that can't be treated any differently. Um, and then finally, uh, 7F here, uh, we'll really get into with

the required zoning amendments, but there's this land development project process that's existed in the state for about 25 years or 30 years, sorry. Um, and within that, you're now required to provide dimensional incentives. So, this just lets folks know that as that ordinance has changed, like any other development, they can take advantage of this zoning incentive.

And that's the ordinance.

I mean, the important takeaway is it's triggered by 10 or more units. So, if you want to build nine, you don't. It's not triggered 10 or more. Council president had a great question to me. Is he talking about 10 houses or 10 units?

And it's 10 units. So, it could be 10 individual house lots in a development or most likely it would be probably 10 units in an apartment building, right?

Apartment building because the city doesn't really I mean, I can't speak to this, but maybe Keith can correct me. We don't have large stretches of land where you can probably put a new 10 house 10 lot subdivision. We just dense enough right now. How much of that? There's not much left for that. I don't think well he knows well. But anyway, so that's so as part of the work workshop as I've

said there's not really a lot of um there won't be any any voting. We have, I think, maybe just three people who've uh attended who are not um city staff, but I I would invite at this time to take a quick break and then we don't want to belabor this because we we want to move the night along. Um but um young lady who is here, uh Tina, now we have

not talked about any of this, but I we briefly chatted before the meeting and uh you had um some things to say. So, I would invite you to you'd like to say something to come forward or if you're happy just listening and watching. I'll let me walk this over to you.

Thank you very much. name and address.

Oh, I'm I'm You don't want to give me my address because I'm the last house in Rhode Island in Burville, but I'm dying to be um an East Providence girl. So, this is why accessible housing in East Providence would be my dream. Um I've been wanting to live here. But my name is Tina Ganette. I run my own nonprofit ramp rail access motor rights progress.

We do the accessibility for the state, but I'm also a federal appointee to the United States Access Board. So, I not only do the accessibility for the state, I do it for the country. Um, according to the Fair Housing Act that we're working on, what we're trying to propose up there is 25% of any state or federal money housing units be fully physically accessible. The reason why we say that

is because if FEMA was to evacuate the state of Rhode Island today, 56% of Rhode Islanders are registered as a mobility aid evacuation. And there's 1% of housing for us. There's no shelters that are accessible. Um there's nothing available for us. And the housing that is available is in manners or highrises.

That doesn't do well for the family that has children in wheelchairs that want to live in their community or I'm in a wheelchair, my children are not. We still want to live out in the community.

And B, we want to have different types of housings. We work, we have jobs, um we're active members of society. But not only do we want to have physically accessible housing for us, but I make friends with all of you. You have birthday parties, you have family functions, you have outings, we want to come. So by building accessible, you now have the visitability progress going where now I can come to all of your

events. Like if when you did that row of housing, the remember the picture of the row of housing? If all of those stairs went away and you did a side ramp adjacent to the deck, you have enough ramping for us to get in, it doesn't take away from anything of the house, but now I can visit all of those other units that are in that row of housing. That's the important for for us

to have community for us. We don't need a lot of land because trust me, I don't want to mow my lawn. It's horrible. I can do it. I don't like to do it. Um, but we don't want to do our lawn. and we don't want to do that. So, we don't need a lot of land, but we do need a yard for those of us who have service dogs that

we want to just be able to be on a first floor, open the door, let our dog out. I don't want to be dressed at 5 in the morning or 11 at night to take my dog out. These are acts that people don't think about. When the mayor tonight said that this is a first for the state, this is a first for across the country. We can't get data on this because nobody's

doing it. We just changed the Fair Housing Act. It's not been enacted because you all know what the political I don't want to get into that. Um, so it hasn't actually been enacted yet, but by the state of Rhode Island that's an hour and a half long and the city of East Province, which is to me the prettiest and the most centralized of our states, if we went accessible, the rest of the

state would follow. And wouldn't it be great to be the leader in something to be taking care of the society that no one's taking care of? We are all one diagnosis, one accident, or one age away from being in this community, either temporarily or permanently. If we do not build accessible housing, we're going to be in a lot of trouble because I have 30 people in wheelchairs on the street because I have

no place to put them. We need to fix that and we need to make that go away.

So, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate you all. Thank you.

And I think when we had discuss excuse me I think when we had this discussion with Peter um that the the cost of this uh to make these accessibles is not exorbitant it's it's a little more it's not it's not doesn't add much to the housing uh the cost to construct such housing to be right and the so one of the the benefits are great so of this ordinance is that you can build a

different type of unit to meet the requirements. So this aligns with the need and so it could be that they the um cost of the fully physically accessible unit is less than what your market rate unit is. The importance is that we're having integration throughout the city um and that we are pro producing these units so that they can be utilized. So the inclusion just for the benefit of the

council and the public, the inclusionary zoning ordinance is a separate standalone uh that is being will be at some point be referred to the planning board or we're waiting for their recommendations, but it's been drafted through the work of the consultant. So that you'll see that in in a in a more ordinance form in the future, but assuming that um it has a support, I think the it would make sense to get it

to the planning board, let them comment on it, and then get it back to the council. That's how we would do it. and then we'd pass a formal ordinance after a public another public hearing. So that's where we are. But this was just to introduce introduc introduce you to the the terms and to the um the concept of the entire ordinance.

Thank you, Peter. Now we're going to get to the fun stuff, I think. Right. Yeah.

So fun for the attorneys. Fun for the attorneys. Yes. I frankly like to hear that.

Uh, council vice president. I mean, um, so as you know, the state over the last two years has passed a tremendous amount of zoning changes, mandatory zoning changes um that basically we really have no choice but to enact to conform with state law. Peter uh and uh working with his team and the planning department and the staff um have put together which is the 100 excuse me the 83 page ordinance

that you have of the proposal. Um, we're going to go through it pretty quickly because as I indicated, um, most of this is mandatory, but I want want to the purpose of this is to give the public and the council some comfort level as to what we actually are changing and why we're changing it and what it actually means. So, you'll hear some of them are definitions that we've adopted that the

state requires us to adopt. Um there's a thing called unifying development re unified uh unified development review um which is now required used to be optional and we'll explain a little bit what that is. It's it's designed to help the uh planning process to move a little smoothly. Uh so you can go before one board instead of going before the planning board and the zoning board. But

I'll let Peter take it. And um a lot of it's repetitive like the we we uh aligned the notice requirement which was like they got rid of the certified mail.

it's now uh first class mail which is cheaper uh for the person who's trying to do development. So you'll see anytime there's a notice requirement you'll see that it's changed from first class to from from certified mail to first class throughout the ordinance. Uh so you know it's a lot some of this is repetitive I guess what I'm trying to say. So so there'll be a lot of changes but some of

them are necessary repetitive changes.

So thank you Peter. So there there's two sections to the ordinance. The first section is this paragraph on the first page. That's a change to chapter 2, which is the powers of the planning board. So Mike mentioned unified development review. Um that was previously enabled as an option. It's now a requirement in state law. So that is if you were doing a subdivision, a land development project or development

plan review. Those are those more detailed site plans where a planning a um official is looking at the detailed designs to make sure that the designs are consistent with the city's goals.

That is done at the planning board. If you need a variance or special use permit, uh you have to go to the planning board. You can no longer go to the zoning board um the way things used to be. So zoning board is only reviewing projects that don't have that additional planning element to it.

So if if I was developing a you know 11 lot subdivision and I need I was going to get 11 lots and a couple of those lots needed dimensional variances maybe the setback or the road frontage wasn't quite right. Under the old system we used you you you start at the planning board. They would grant a master plan approval contingent upon you getting relief from the zoning board. The the

entire application would be sent to the zoning board. They would rule on whether or not you're going to get a dimensional variance which would required a whole another advertisement all you know public hearings and whatnot and then once they made the decision assuming it was a favorable decision it would go back to the planning board to complete whatever development they had uh council

the council president was here when this was first proposed by the state it was an optional so council president Berto at the time had an ordinance to allow to to make it um make it um mandated by the by mandated that didn't go anywhere. Um, and then the state now says you don't even have the option anymore. The planning board must have this power. So, it does weaken a little bit of the

authority of the zoning board for new projects, but the the policy decision behind it is that you go a developer goes before one board now and gets all the relief they needed. There's no more bouncing back and forth. So, that's mandatory and that's what the term unified development review means, right?

The other the other phrase that's in here is development plan review. Um, as I mentioned, that's similar to land development projects where the planning officials are taking a look at a project and making a qualitative evaluation on if the project design aligns with the city's goals. Um, we'll get a little into a little more more detail about the difference between the two, but what we

settled on is that both of these processes have their advantages and disadvantages, and the city benefits from including both development plan review and land development projects as regulatory tools. So, we're adding that as an additional um power and duty of the planning board. And it's required by state law that the um review authority for both development plan review and land

development projects be with the word.

Um we can't assign it to a different body unfortunately. So then we get to definitions in the zoning ordinance such as section 19.1. Um accessory dwelling units we've talked about. This is the state definition. So, uh, we're required to follow that state definition. This ordinance changes the language to mirror the state definition. And I'll I'll get into a little bit more detail about some of the

effects of this, but um, an accessory dwelling unit is now permitted by right um, under certain circumstances.

uh let's say within the existing structure um on all single family and all multif family developments um and so we've been trying to figure out how to align the ordinance with that new definition of state law and we have there's a whole ADU section uh further in this ordinance where we'll talk more about that but we can't change the definition and we can't be any more restrictive than the state allows the

city to be so that definition is here. I think I'm the page numbering might be a little off. They got three three.

It's a basement. So again, that's adopting the uh page three of our thing.

So that's a stable definition, right? I don't I mean to the extent that the council wants to go through the definitions we can but I will tell you that all the definitions that are in this ordinance as proposed are required or aligned with state law. So right nothing we can do about it other than educate you what those definitions are.

So yeah I I don't think we should waste waste time on that. We'll certainly talk about it more other meetings but it is what it is. Yep.

So um development plan review again the state has provided a definition of that such that if you're reviewing plans, they really need to align with either development plan review or land development project.

So that will have impacts elsewhere in the ordinance, that new definition.

It's uh controversial, not controversial, but uh the household, you might want to just touch on the new definition of a household that we're required to adopt. Right. Um so the state changed the definition. and they've exempted these NR certified residences which are um folks uh single family homes for folks in recovery. So those can have more than four unrelated persons. Um but the definition matches

the state uh new definition. So we had to change um the number of permitted residents residents within it. the number of permitted un related residents um in a household.

The one of the policy things to think about here is what happens if a household has too many residents in it. Um and that is not addressed by this definition change. Uh group homes we have we have quite a bit in the city here.

Uh, do we need to add language because it doesn't say anything about group homes?

I think there's another provision that's that's not a change. I think group homes will be exempted by this. Yeah.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Yeah, that's a good point.

But just so a household is now a family, which may also include servants. I know that Frank has a bunch of servants at his house and employees living within a family and or a person or group of no more than five unrelated persons living together but no more than one per bedroom. So a household is now up to five unrelated people. So but it does not apply to um registered uh uh

recovery homes. So you could there was an issue in the city. I forgot where part of the city it was but for this. Yeah. So, so those are exempted. So that you can have 20 people in a in an NR home, but otherwise you can't have more than five unrelated people under our ordinance and to comply with state law or service.

So I believe the next revision I have here is the change in the notice of um application. So again that's first class mail and we mirrored the state zoning enabling act distance which is in or within 200 ft of the perimeter. Excuse me. There's a wheel on the right side of that. You can adjust volume. Right. Thank you. Might help.

Don't bang it cuz we're going to send you the bill to replace that microphone.

There's also So, specifically in 2023, the state forgot to amend the requirements for a special use permit notice. So that What page are you on?

This is bottom of page 23 going to page 24. So again, they changed the the notice. I one of the things that we wanted to do is make sure that how you measure the 200 foot radius is consistent with state law. We had a little bit of different definition. It was it was difficult in application. So we asked the consultants to look at all the notice requirements and the 200 foot radius or whatever the notice

requirement was and to conform that with state law. So you'll see throughout this ordinance that when you have to when you when they talk about a radius, it's from the um perimeter perimeter of the actual uh lot, right?

Yes. Yes. Or the structure, not the structure, excuse the lot line. And that's something that we we fixed.

So and so you'll see those changes throughout. It looks like there's a lot of changes, but again, as I indicated, anytime there's notice requirements, we conformed it to make sure that it was consistent throughout. So yeah, the next several pages are all so all notice required notice things. If you jump down to section 19-56, which I have as the top of page 28, 27, those are accessory dwelling unit

um permitting requirements that assign duties to the zoning official. And we've concluded that those are uninforceable under the new ADU minimum requirements. All the strikes.

So we've stricken that language.

Just explain that for the because that's going to be I'm sure a little controversial when we get back to the full council. So the reason why that was stricken because the powers that were used to be delegated to the zoning officer to approve ADUs because ADUs are now frankly a matter of right. they don't have that power to deny or or grant anymore. Correct. Correct.

Generally, and that's the same in section 1957 further down on that page.

So, not only the changes are mandatory, but some of the strikeouts are mandatory because of the changes. So, ADUs are allowed in and the city of town cannot.

There's a few restrictions you can do.

So, in the restrictions, but you can't the ADU section, we do have those, but you can't make it a special use permit or anything like that. We'll get we'll get to the for the for the basic ADU.

Yep. Then there's more notice information. And then we get down to the use table. So that's section 1998. I have it as page 32. So the zoning ordinance had the term one family in some places and the term single family elsewhere. The state uses single family. So we're changing the use to align with the state term. So it goes from one family to single family.

And then there was a lot of talk about two family dwellings. The substandard law, state law amendment from two years ago um is been thoroughly analyzed uh in many contexts and is in litigation in many municipalities. The hope was to avoid litigation here. um and that is where you have a use tied to uh a minimum lot size that might not be enforceable.

So, we've elected to propose that it be a special use permit. And under the special use permit as part of those specific and objective require criteria that are required under the state law amendments from two from two years ago, you can have the minimum lot size there.

So, that's what we did is we moved it to a special use permit. uh with a criterion that the minimum lot size be met. And then there's also a change from 2023 where you add additional requirements to a use. So um under the multif family here, that's just kind of a information that's not really tied to the use that there's a land development project process. This is top of page 33. Um but further down

you'll see some crossouts uh that the state created a process where if you don't strictly con um align to a listed use, you can apply to the zoning official to be considered um uh as that use and it's a special use permit. One of the problems being that there's not necessarily criteria for that uh and might be a permitted use. So what you want to do when you write a use

table now is create as broad a category as you can as big a net as as wide a net as you can to encompass any use that might be related that to that because a savvy developer will try and align themselves with a use even if it doesn't strictly align under the letter of the the written language. And then in the middle of page 37 here where it said trailer courts, um the state has

provided a definition for manufactured home, which is what they're referring to is what we might um previously consider a mobile home or something like that.

And so those are regulated by federal law. Uh it's basically anytime you're transporting a a housing unit or a portion thereof on a on a truck. Um and the state has aligned their definition of the federal definition.

uh they may ease the use of manufactured homes around the state, but they haven't yet done that. Just provided a state definition.

I just want to go back because I know this could be um want make sure the council understand it's an R5 and R six zones of two family homes were previously permitted but it was tied to a square footage of the lot because of litigation that's going on in other communities and after consultation with our consultants and the zoning officer we believe that that square footage putting putting that

square footage requirement in a use table would probably make it illegal not enforceable. So what they did is a two family dwelling will be allowed in an R5 and R six zone. However, it's by special use permit and you so you have to apply and and there's objective criteria that you have to get it. So it's not automatic. There still be review by the zoning board and they have to meet those

specific objective criteria which I think you pointed out already. It could be the zoning board, sometimes it might be the planning, new construction, could be the planning board, right? But yeah, could be either. We'll get to those specific and objective criteria. And this is something that we struggled with in doing this draft because we talked about earlier, especially in Kim's presentation, about

how we wanted to make, you know, some of this housing more doable. So, it's you might think, well, why are you making duplexes a special use permit then, which is arguably more u more of a process, but for the reasons that um that the solicitor and Peter talked about, it was really the only way to get around this new legal issue that has come up for us to still have that

minimum lot size. The other thing is that every single family home is now allowed an accessory dwelling unit. So where whereas 5 years ago those might have been counted as two families, they're now technically under zoning as single family. So what we're really talking about with two family properties is two family plus an ADU. So it's really three, you know, three households might be living on that property even

though it's described in the zoning ordinance as a two family.

One thing to point out too is looking at the use chart. This shows how, you know, the document you're looking at is pretty conservative and sticks to what is required per state law. Like some of the things Kim was talking about earlier that we looked at like, you know, allowing families in additional zones and multif family in additional zones isn't proposed here.

So yeah, this is trying to just stick with what was uh required for state law. Now I'm down at article 4, division 2, section 19132, which I have as of page 41. And this language here is um word for word from the state law. Um this language sounds like we'll change this session. And so it might change before the council adopts it. And if that case, I'm sure we would adopt the the latest language, but

um this is what uh Kim had mentioned in terms of you shift down to the next zone in terms of your requirements. So if you have a 7,000 foot lot in a 10,000 foot minimum zoning district, you get the rules of a 5,000 square foot zoning district. So the thing that we we were a little the thing that we picked out on this so this was this is a substandard

lot. So say there's in in in a development or whatever in a zone all the lots of 10,000 but somehow there's one lot in this or one or two lots that have to be a 5,000 in in the zone. You could question is and it's right now vacant. Technically they'd have to get a zoning variance uh to allow you to build on that 5,000 square foot lot because it doesn't comply. the law now the new law

which was this compliant the new law says you look to and it says you look to a similar zone it doesn't distinguish between residential or commercial um but in the statute in the statute we we're thinking ahead and I think it's intended that obviously if it's a residential zone you should be looking to a residential uh lot requirement not a not a business lot requirement so we added

that in this and we think that we're ahead of state law and we know that state law is pending to make that a little bit more clear so Um, and that's really the help of the staff at pulling that out.

Uh, section right below that 19-133. Um, this is the merger of uh, substandard lots when you have more than one lot in common ownership. Uh, there was a provision kind of snuck in there uh, a at the end of 2023. Um and that shifted standards that may have been included to now be required. Um so we've added the bare minimum that we think is required under the statute um for when you're looking at merger of substandard

lots. And then section 19-134 um this uh talks about floor area ratio.

So that the idea is that if you have a 5,000 foot lot, put up a one-story 5,000t building that takes up the whole lot, your floor area ratio would be one.

So your building size in relation to your lot size is one. If you have that same 5,000 foot lot, you put up three f a threetory structure that happens to be 5,000 square feet total. Each floor is 1,600 square feet or whatever the math is. That also would have a floor area ratio of one. Um the state amended um some of the criteria for floor area ratio. Historically it has been a standard

provision required in zoning ordinances.

Few municipalities have the provision.

We have added here as a um safety net in case this ever comes up with an application. So the idea here is that this in actuality is no change but it's a addition to um safeguard the city against a aggressive developer and then we come to the ADU um section which is 19-202.

So this is kind of important. I know you're probably going to get a lot of questions on this so we'll go through this a little more. is a huge change but it's all required to be uh comply with state law. So right, so this used to be an authorization of accessory dwelling units. The state has now authorized uh accessory dwelling units as we mentioned on every the way they phrase it is every property where the

principal use is a single or multif family residential dwelling. And so this so that's like everything every right right basically basically not commercial but it's not commercial and it's not industrial.

Interestingly, East Providence already allows what you might think of as an ADU on commercial and industrial properties.

Um, it uses different terminology. We didn't change that. I doubt that you have any of those in the city. Maybe a few in the commercial core. Um, but what we're really talking about here is the residential properties and that's where the state made the change. So every house in the city of East Providence presently now tomorrow can build an ADU converting garages or putting above a garage or anything like

that without having to go through how much I mean how much approval building permit only no zoning relief no zoning with some restrictions with with some exceptions but yes you're generally right this was 20 years ago I wouldn't have bought my I wouldn't have had to move right I would have been able to expand but uh you know I'll just leave it at that. Yeah. Right. This is a big change.

Uh this requires we're required to conform with this. Yes. There are some restrictions that we we have put on or limits and we're going to go through those. So if you look at subsection B2 here, um the state has restricted the ability of a municipality to um not permit ADUs that are two bedrooms or smaller. We interpret that as having the authority to restrict ADUs of three bedrooms or more. So we have in here

that you can't do an ADU any larger than two bedrooms. Some municipalities have elected to large to allow larger ADUs.

If you think to the basic concept of an accessory dwelling unit being accessory as in secondary to a a primary dwelling unit, once you get to three bedrooms, you might be getting to the point where your ADU is bigger than your principal dwelling unit. So, what what is the state saying on this? What is the state?

Two bedrooms you have to allow. And we're saying, well, okay, we're not going to allow three bedrooms or or so you have to be two bedrooms or less.

Okay. Two or less. So my understanding a bedroom is defined as having a closet.

So I mean if you have a room that doesn't have a closet in it. I mean that's not I mean you can divide there's a square footage maximum on here as well. There is a square footage. Okay. I was just question I was just curious on that you know. Yeah I know in real estate when they look at houses if you don't have a right. So so I imagine the process here is you know you're required

to get the building permit. Part of the building pro permit process. The zoning official looks at the building permit application. There's usually a floor plan in there and in that that would show closets and the bedrooms would probably be labeled. So you'll um so the ADU shall be no larger than 10 bedroom.

Two bedrooms that's a 10 two bedrooms.

That's a restriction that which we put on you know. Um an ADU is permitted accessory use on the same lot where the principal use is a legally established residential use. So if you have a legally established residential use, you can put an ADU there automatically subject to building code issues, but automatically. So no, you'll see all the strikeouts because our ordinance used to

kind of allow ADUs, but it was subject to the a lot of review by the zoning officer and whatnot. That's why that's all stricken out and they were required for family members, right? Only right.

That's the other issue. Used to be limited to family members, but now it's open to anybody. That's just and so the square footage requirements that we tied to. So that's this is the tightest you can be under state law. Two-bedroom can be up to,200 square feet or 60% of the floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less.

It is. Yep. And a onebedroom or studio can be up to 900 square ft or 60% of the floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less.

So all this all the strikeouts because of the stuff that the zoning officer used to be able to do that's because it's permitted by right now. We got rid of all that review. We had to uh and we talk let's talk about little parking and we'll get to Yeah. Just just one point I want to bring up is there's some convoluted language in the state law about how you might restrict ADUs. Some

municipalities are reading it as if the lot is less than a halfacre in size, you might not be able to put up a new detached ADU. So that put a new structure in the yard. Um, the way that we talked about it here is we didn't feel comfortable having that type of restriction. So, as the solicitor mentioned, what we're permitting is an ADU on any property uh that is residential regardless of the size of

the lot. Um, it's very clear under state law that anytime you have an existing building, you can carve up that building so that some of the building is assigned to the principal dwelling unit and some of it is assigned to the accessory. Where it's a bit of a gray area is if you have a detached structure like an a detached garage or a shed and your ability ability to convert that to

an ADU or construct a new ADU in the yard. What about basement?

Basements would be part of an existing building or if it's a you had a shed with a basement. Um it'd be a little trickier, but if if you mean as a part of the main house, then yes, you can put an ADU in the basement or the attic. As Councilman said, without a closet, that wouldn't matter. As long as it's part of the house, right? That might be a studio

if it doesn't have a a closet. Studio.

Well, right now every house that has an attached garage tomorrow meeting, you know, getting building approval can start under state law. Yes. State law can convert that garage. That's that's the start of making it as long as they meet parking requirements.

As long as they meet parking requirements. So, if they're if they're actually converting the garage itself, they might have a parking requirement issue.

But as long as they continue to meet their parking requirements, yes, you need parking. you need the regular building permits and things like that.

For an example, what would be the parking requirement for garage? Give give me an example like for Well, if you have a single family, I think it's a two spaces. So, if somehow your two spaces were only in the garage, if your garage was right on the street and you couldn't fit cars in the driveway, you can't lose those parking spaces to put in the ADU.

Or you can add you can have a parking requirement for the ADU. So, let's say you now need three spaces, you have to find a place for that third car. What is what's being proposed for the parking requirement on this ADU?

I think it was that's five, I think. Right. Yep.

So, we we we looked at this closely. We were worried about, you know, you might have a five unit property in the city with no parking, and now they're getting an ADU on top of that. Um, so we did want to have a parking requirement in certain circumstances.

So, I didn't see it in here, but maybe No, I mean, maybe one additional maybe Ed can answer it. Right now, uh, uh, a single family home a three-bedroom single family home.

What's the requirement for a cause? And just use the mic so it goes into the record, please. Thank you.

What is the We have We have a unique We have a unique anomaly in our zoning ordinance that three units requires four parking spaces or one and a third.

Otherwise, it's all two spaces per per unit. So, let's use an analogy of a duplex who wants to convert their their basement to an ADU. two. This is that where a single family all single families require two parking spaces. Two parking spots. So if you had an ADU ADU, you don't you need to have three parking spots. Well, I I'm assuming cuz I wasn't sure that we were mandating the

requirement for an addition. That's not what this says. No. No. I mean, so it stays the same. No. Well, you have a little bit of discretion. So that's what we we gave some discretion. Yeah. So we said if you're not meeting Yeah. the current required parking. So let's say you have a single family with no parking, then you need to put it in a parking space. But if you already have

two, then we're not requiring a third.

That's what I mean. So if you have room for three, you're you're golden already, right? Yeah. So the so in in conversing as a group, we we're also balancing that we're concerned probably the number one biggest concern is we have too much impervious coverage already and we're trying to address drainage and the aesthetics.

So what the point being is if we keep mandating more parking and especially with an ADU because most ADUs either you're going to accommodating a loved one or a single person and so forth and a lot of people don't drive cars. Why are we forcing creating more hard surface if it's not going to be required? Obviously we were concerned what about instances where you already are overstressing a neighborhood and now

you're creating more stress. So in those instances, so if you're in compliance and we realize one deficiency of parking space, is that really going to harm a neighborhood? We don't believe so.

Good. Good. I just want to check the the state allows you to require up to one parking space per bedroom of the ADU. And and even though Ed said likely to be a family member, very make it very clear, ADUs no longer have to be a family member. No, no, but what I'm saying No, just with the instances of where we've seen and how the ADUs, we probably got about a dozen of them

already in the city. I'm just I'm just shift my of how many I approved and from what I hear from other communities, they're either a accommodating a loved one or family member or just a single person because they're usually on the smaller side because remember they're limited to 60% of the principal living area. So if you take a house that has 1,800 ft of living area and you multiply

by6, you're going to be limited to to So it's going to be small units. These are not going to be large units.

Why don't you stay here? Oh, we we've got we've got a lot of Please bring it in to um by for state purposes, we have to track them. So we've already created the module in our permitting system. So when you apply for an ADU, it's right there locked in. We can track them. Ed, stay stay at the deis here. So, so I was gonna sneak out. I know. Next. Next is multif family.

So, again, we're changing a little language to line with state law. The the big issue is section 19-28 where the way we're interpreting substandard law. cannot require a certain size lot for a certain size um multif family property. We're reversing that and saying, well, you can only have so much density. So, we're just changing the numbers so that um if you have a a 10,000 square foot lot

and you want to put it a four unit uh property, that's fine. But once you go to five units, that's not allowed. So, we just had to change the language. And then the way it's calculated is it's averaged out uh based on the number of bedrooms that you have. So this was existing language, the number of bedrooms and we just put in there that an ADU doesn't count and if you have a

mix of let's say one bedroom and two-bedroom units that you get the average. So we had all the the calculation in here that if you have a two-bedroom, a onebedroom, a studio which counts which counts as a onebedroom and an ADU and your density would be the average basically of 2,00 for the two-bedroom and the 1500 for the two single bedroom units and it gives you an average of 1,667. And then you go down to division

10 section 19-261 just ch changing the language for trailer court to manufactured home court and you'll see that in a few more sections. So that section 19261 it talks about trash.

So would ADUs uh be allowed an extra trash bin from the city recycling or does that not matter? They share the whole I mean not a zoning issue zoning currently though it might become a zoning issue or it might be a different section. So it's at the discretion of the city administr DPW or if we would yeah that's more for the current ordinances for dumpsters for those particular uses basically. Right. So, so

if you have I don't know if it's the numbers four units or more than four units is when it's treated as commercial from a trash recycling storage perspective. It's an interesting question because from a pure from our world an ADU is not a dwelling unit from our world. It may be in the building code and then the tax assessment is an entirely different thing. So, but from the building fire code, if I'm going

from a two to a two in an ADU, I'm going to three. I got to meet a building code and fire code of three units. So, it's an interesting question. And again, that just so the there's not an additional address like it is in 25A or we're not creating additional. It's it's still that one address. So, we're not we don't regulate address. No, no. I'm just saying by city standpoint, you know what I'm saying?

From the from the police, fire and everything like that. Now, you get a call, you get a call to 19 uh mock 19 mockingbird way, that fire department shows up. They're going to they're going to 19 mocking bird way. Where are they going in? You could be fast. You might not be home. That fire department now doesn't I mean, this is a logistic question from there. Where does that fire department go? I guarantee you I

can get you an answer tomorrow because we have ADUs going up. So building official how he's handling on that how that works. One of the other things that municipalities are struggling with is is condoization is if you condoize your property, can can an ADU be transferred separately from the principal unit? And and we don't we don't speak to that in the zoning ordinance, but I think it will come up

um somewhere in the state.

Thank you. Next.

So, uh, division 11 section 19-279. This is, um, what we view as a victim of the change in de definition to development plan review. So, uh, whether or not this was the practice, there was a provision here that shared parking would be reviewed by the zoning officer.

Um, and we thought that was inconsistent with the new state law. So, we're holding that into development plan review, which is further down in this draft amendment. Then you see in section 19-281 the change from one to single family and then 19-283 is similar where it was a zoning official review of a a plan and that's now been moved to DPR.

So again, the thing that gets complicated is obviously when you change the process of the definitions in one section, it affects other sections that that's why you'll see a lot of strikeouts. You got to kind of look at it as a a you got you have to look at this ordinance as a whole or you'll see a lot of strikeouts. It doesn't mean that we're getting rid of stuff. It doesn't mean we're getting rid of stuff,

but the reason why we're getting rid of stuff is to because we added stuff that we're required to do by state law that perhaps like the zoning officer used to be able to review. Now the state law says no, you can't go to the zoning officer. you have to go to the planning board or the planning department. So we struck all the provisions that gave that individual the you know the authority to

review. And then similarly section 19-284 at the top here that's was a zoning official review. Now it's required to be development plan review bottom of page 51. And then moving on to the table on the top of page 52 change in one to single family. And then the way the um state is defining ADU and how it uses multif family, we've slid two family and three family into the definition of multif

family. So the parking requirements are for multifamilies that are not two or three family there. Then bottom of page 54, the same table changing the word trailer to manufactured home. So I think for as far as the the minor changes like that we don't I mean okay I think you guys get that right. Yeah. Yeah. Like let's go to like for the permit 55 same thing and then 56 same thing more notice stuff and then um

what page did you say to jump to Mike?

Uh we're looking at permitted uses and we look at antennas. You you updated the antenna. Yeah. So that's um 58 57 uh 60 permitted uses. This is um the article on antennas um and towers towers of antennas towers and antennas right and this is a similarly a DPR issue and also a notice issue. So the changes in here uh have some items related to notice and aligning that with state zoning notice

requirements and then also um move shifting the review of antennas and towers to DPR away from a zoning official review.

So that's why you'll see a lot a lot of track changes for that but that's all it's doing.

There's still review. just not was the zoning officer. It goes to the development plan review at the planning planning staff or the planning board level. Right. Correct. Yeah. Yes. I don't I don't want anyone to suggest that we're getting rid of towers and there's no review. There is a review.

We're just conforming that review.

Switching it. Yes. H67 had used the word duplex. We just changed that to two family to match the rest of the ordinance.

And um top of page 69, this is related to antennas and towers and we're using the the state law language which is permitting authority um which would be likely the planning board or planning staff. So if you go to section 19-360.1 that's the criteria for the two family homes those zones. Yep. Oh, we looked at the use table earlier and we had two family homes uh multi was it two

two family in in the R5 and R six which used to be tied to a dimensional requirement right we now say that you can do that you can build the two family homes in the R5 and R six but the lot shall have an area of at least 50% greater than the minimum lot area and in the R4 district the lot shall have an area of 7 75% greater than the minimum

lot size. You just took that requirement and put it in a in a separate category.

So hopefully to withstand legal review.

Yes.

And it's by special use permit. It's not automatic that they have to if they meet those criteria, they will get it, but there still would be review by the zoning board or board as the case may be. So then next is article five land development projects which we talked a little bit about. We are adding bottom of section 19-361 says zoning incentives. Uh this is mirroring a state law change. So we are just using the

exact language referring to that state law where land development zoning incentives are required in certain circumstances for land development projects.

And then um section 19-364 which is also land development projects just aligning the use of multif family in the middle of page 73 with the other portions of the zoning code. And then moving on to development plan review bottom of page 76. You look at the definition of development plan review. It's only per permitted now in certain circumstances.

We felt the city best aligned to that definition of as an urban center. So this is adding a provision that declares the city of East Providence an urban center to align with the definition of development plan review and enable development plan review in the city. It used to be development plan review was much more open-ended.

the legislature and their infinite wisdom has restricted development of plan review and for instances like these parking lots and loading areas and and cell towers where we want to take advantage of this very streamlined review process uh we have to fit into one of those categories. So that's what this language does is protects the city's the right to have the review basically. Yes, this is good for the

city. Um and then also similarly to land development projects uh the definitions are slightly different but the review processes are very similar. This the way the state law is written it's not clear whether a municipality can dictate which process an applicant applies to. So we wanted to make the processes very similar. We're also permitting zoning incentives that would mirror those of land development

projects here section 19-4 19-450. So that's bottom of page 76, top of page 77. And then we had to make, I think, just a couple changes to the waterfront district to align with state law. So that's bottom of page 77 about notice.

Then changing the term one family to single family at the bottom of page 78. That's everything. Thank you.

I I would say to whoever did the copying, thank you for copying both sides because you know it looks like a lot of paper here and people always question us about that but I was efficiently done. Um, thank you for that and know we have more to do I'm sure. I would ask the zoning officer thank you for being here. Do you have any general comments on this process or No. Um I

think a lot of it because states law basically superseded. We've had some good practice practice already in enforcing it. Nothing has been happening for two years. So it brought guidance to the table. We've had some practical application. We've already had to deal with some nuances. How do you interpret certain things? So it it it helped with the discussion and the conversation how

to clean this up. So we we have a smooth transition with planning and zoning and building get getting all of this. Uh Patrick Dominic, do you need to add anything? Uh no, I can't add anything. If anything, I think this is just going to streamline the process, provide a lot more clarification to the developers. You know, it's it's going to help us a lot with having the concept meetings,

pre-application meetings. Everybody's going to know the process and the length of the permanence.

Thank you. And um before I get to um Council Vice President Rigo and Solicitor closing, there are a couple of members here, the public who were here.

Do you want to add anything in this process briefly or Sure.

Good evening everyone. Uh my name is Melody Pimental. I live at 22 Mening Drive in Riverside, Rhode Island. I am here as a member of the public and I'd like to first thank everyone for being here tonight and listening to many of the proposals that I believe will have a positive impact in increasing housing density and thereby lowering the cost in our city. Things like small lot zoning town homes and ensuring

accessibility and many other proposals tonight I am proud to support and I'm hopeful that we'll adopt some some of these policies tonight. At the same time, I would also like to address the proposed inclusionary zoning mandate requiring 20% of units in developments of 10 or more to be restricted as affordable units. I believe that so I share the concern here for our housing crisis. Our friends and

neighbors are struggling with rising shelter costs and some are leaving East Providence and others face homelessness.

But I think that this well-intentioned proposal risks making some things worse.

For instance, there's research from the Turner Center at UC Berkeley that shows that higher inclusionary zoning requirements reduce both affordable and market rate housing production. And there's um in Portland, they did something similar and that mandate actually slowed down fillment and failed to deliver enough affordable units. So I ask, how will the city ensure that this 20% mandate doesn't choke off that

market rate housing supply and drive costs up for folks? So the problem that I see is that some of these affordable units need subsidies. Without them, developers may stop building or cluster projects at nine units to dodge that mandate. That's a concern that I have regarding that that proposal. What funding will the city provide to offset those costs and um to prevent them from avoiding that

requirement altogether? Um, some experts have warned in some studies that unfunded mandates like this raise market rate prices cover those losses, thus further further burning residents who only qualify to purchase market rate homes. So instead of like a broad risky 20% mandate, why not take like a more measured approach? So start like a 10% requirement and maybe increase it if the data pans out. So, I think that's a

reasonable compromise here. Or even convene a housing and planning committee to further study this issue and propose further incremental improvements to our zoning and planning regulations in our city. And I think we could encourage a lot of marker rate housing by easing some of our zoning rules, generating a lot of tax revenue at no public cost.

Research shows that marker rate homes reduce displacement just like affordable ones but without straining our public funding. Broad mandates have unintended consequences. In the example I mentioned ear earlier, Portland's housing production plummeted 81.6% following their implementation of their specific inclusionary zoning provision. And I'd rather not risk that here. So I think we should choose like a incremental

um datadriven approach to this instead of going straight for 20%. And again I appreciate the hard work everyone at this table and the time the council and the consultants have put into this. Um however instead of going forward the inclusionary zoning proposal tonight I think it's important to study it further and go with again that incremental approach that I am advocating for. Again thank you so much.

We did uh we did discuss Portland I think at one point one of our meetings.

I think this um I think that's something when next step is to get this before the planning board and I and I would hope that the planning department would look into those concerns and see what um you know nothing is set in stone because this is a work session and we haven't adopted anything yet. Certainly that's the goal we set. The other thing that we need to know, of course, I think even if

it was to be adopted as presented tonight, um I know the administration and the planning department is committed to making this work and if it doesn't work, we can always change it. Right? So this nothing is set in stone. So the council has the ability to change this anytime with s sufficient public hearings. But I think I think it was important in speaking for the administration that we be we we start

somewhere and that was the first step tonight. So, all very good comments and I I'm I'm actually I'm going to ask my friends in the planning department to if they could pull that study to see see uh if we could maybe share that with the council members and our myself just to take a look at it. Um because it might be it sounded very interesting because that was a concern that was raised about

whether we were forcing people to develop nine units or less basically.

So, thank you. I I agree and thank you Melody for those comments. Uh um before I go to the council vice president on the the consultants, any closing comments um as we move forward, thank you for having us. Uh have two concerns. One is that we don't have the entire council present and I would just ask you to share that that your experience and your understanding tonight so that we can get the entire

leadership on board with suggested changes. That's that's a plan. Yep.

And the uh you know of course as you saw tonight there are other tools and we would ask you to consider uh additional tools such as um transit oriented development and small.

When is your contract up with us the city? So, so now, right. So, so we are the grant term is 18 months and we are nearing the 18 18 months. Uh it's a hard stop for the funding agency. However, uh there's a new round of funding and a new sort of uh set of planning priorities that the uh the city of each providence might benefit from you said and I I don't want

to believe this you know longer but we also don't want to do anything you know next week so we want to keep researching and everything but I think we also want to move as soon as possible reasonably and that that sounds like we might you know be able to continue there are additional opportunities to sort of uh further there are there have I I have seen drafts of some of the transportation

zoning that we've talked about and some other issues that that that are in draft form. Because of the amount of material that's coming out that we required, we thought it would be better to kind of give you small bites of this. Yes. And so that's kind of where we're working because honestly we also think that there'll be more changes, mandatory changes from the legislature that's

coming down when the session ends. The other thing I will uh take some uh editorial opportunity to to say is the other piece of this is the comprehensive plan and the zoning has to line with the comprehensive plan and follows the comprehensive plan. So to the extent that the zoning can be adopted after a comprehensive plan amendment, that will make all of this easier um and also greatly enhance the city's ability to

enforce its its rules. The the state legislature has been hammering that they want the comprehensive plans to be up to date. So um we're in the middle of that process as well. So hope I agree.

Hopefully we we will um thank you everybody. I would ask council vice president Rigo for closing comments before we adjourn the work session.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the consultants, the city officials here tonight taking their time out of their long workday to be here for this work session.

Um I am happy to see that you talked about in your uh plan to keep some of the historical aspects of the city. I think this is very important.

uh my constituents as well as people in the city if you read a lot of if you read things going on we just don't want to have that cookie cutter city I mean urban as you call east providence an urban area but it you know we're multi-dimensional you know I live in an you know sub god forbid you call where I am an urban area so uh where I represent so suburban he's talking about Rumford

So thank you Mr. President. Um I I I think that's very you know we need to maintain the characteristics of you know that and I think a lot of pe you know again people of concern that have re reached out to me saying that we don't want this you know we don't want Smith Hill you know shoving things down our throats that doesn't make sense. Uh I think there's an urgent I think there's

obviously an urgent situation in this city as I stated in the comments that came out in the press release. Uh we need to have houses need to turn all the time in the community. Generations go next family up with two or three kids move in. It keeps the city vibrant. It keeps the local economics vibrant. When you have young kids that are playing sports, involved in things, you go you spend you spend more money in

restaurants. If it's pizza or anything like that, then then f then people who are, you know, as you talked about the households are dropping one person, well, they probably not going to go out and just eat as much. So, it's that domino effect. the more vibrant the city is. And as we all grow older, vibrant means younger enthusiasm. And again, somebody sells their house. The next person comes in

and build, you know, pulls building permits. next time that house is assessed, they might have sp they might have put a whole addition on uh did it over the value of our property increases and there's more of a maintenance situation. It it you we don't become one of those, you know, cities that you see in the Midwest that I I guess the terminology I'll use is a dead is a dead

community. You need vibrant and you need that going on. And I think this is a step with the ADUs and if we do as as I said that you know planning on any screenage is something that I envision here. I have a great property I know in my ward that would be ideal for that and and pushing for it and that's what we need here. So I want to thank you. I

think we're on the right direction and uh hopefully uh in couple of months this can all be you know after we wait for what happens up at the general assembly we can put our stamp of approval on it here at the city. Thank you.

Thank you Vice President Rigo and I want thank you for your leadership and stepping in when I've been unable to make some of these preliminary meetings and thank you for stepping up. So with that, also thank deputy uh clerk stodded for assistance tonight. Mike, thank you for all of your help.