After much discussion and deliberation, the town council, at its January 13 meeting, accepted mostly as proposed a series of suggestions proffered by the planning board on how to best amend Warren's existing zoning ordinances pertaining to accessory dwelling units, commonly referred to by the acronym ADUs.

The council first broached the subject at its final meeting of 2025 in December. The package of changes was written by Councilor Derrik Trombley, a lawyer by profession who works as an analyst at Rhode Island State House Policy Office.

Trombley explained to his colleagues last month the changes to the ordinance were necessary and needed to be expedited so Warren could incorporate the numerous updates to state housing law implemented by the General Assembly over the previous year-plus.

As required by town charter, the proposed amendments were sent to the planning board for its consideration, which also occurred this past December at its monthly forum. The board, as the council did a week ago, spent considerable time talking through each and ultimately sent five recommendations back to its counterpart.

The first was pretty direct and dealt with the legal definition of an ADU as it became officially in state statute (RIGL § 45-24-31(2)) as of January 1, 2026.

It reads as follows: “Accessory dwelling unit (ADU). A residential living unit on the same lot where the principal use is a legally established single-family dwelling unit or multi-family dwelling unit. An ADU provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It may take various forms including, but not limited to, a detached unit; a unit that is part of an accessory structure, such as a detached garage; or a unit that is part of an expanded or remodeled primary dwelling.”

Another planning board suggestion was to update the town's zoning use tables to denote where ADUs are permitted by right of the owner and where a special use permit must be sought via the zoning board. The council made the adjustments for the moment, but mentioned it would circle back on the matter at a later date for a complete review of the tables.

A third recommendation accepted by the council was in regard to the standards and requirements on an applicant seeking to construct an ADU.

The board suggested whether the application was being made in a zone where the build was a permitted use or whether it required a special use permit both procedures must follow the same process. That means the application "may be reviewed administratively by the zoning official and/or building official where permitted by ordinance, by the planning board when proposed as part of a subdivision or land development application, or by the zoning board of review where zoning relief is required."

In backing the motion to accept the board's wording made by Councilor John Hanley, whose day job is as the building inspector for the City of Pawtucket, Trombley said, "I will second that motion and note that this will give the building inspector the authority to deny an ADU by right when it doesn't have the sort of water and sewer hook-up issue that we've been talking about."

The water and sewer issues the council discussed last Tuesday pertained to another of the board's recommendations that it agreed with on the topic of potential impacts of ADUs on the water supply and wastewater capacity throughout the town, but specifically in those locations that rely on wells and septic systems for each. Only a slight adjustment was made by the council at the behest of Hanley, adding a requirement the existing lot have the necessary well and/or potable water supply.

The one point of disagreement between the two bodies came over the issue of parking. The board suggested a requirement for an ADU to have one space per bedroom unit. However, the council, last month and last week, was of the opinion it should be one spot for the entire structure.

The concerns of the board, as represented at the council meeting by member Jenny Flanagan on all matters broached that evening, were about the heavily congested situations in certain spots around town, most notably in the Main/Water Street corridor.

Hanley, however, said if a location doesn't already have enough parking to meet existing mandates, it wouldn't likely receive permission to add an ADU.

He explained, "What I was trying to get across was, say, if you don't have any parking spaces, but you're supposed to have two or three. If you want to add an ADU not only do you have to have the one for the ADU, you've got to give us the three you owe us. So that'll actually help relieve parking in those districts."

Hanley later asked for an amendment to the town's parking ordinance to reflect his position. Town Solicitor Anthony DeSisto, who guided the council throughout the discussion, referred to Section 32-104 of the ordinance which reads that any building or use erected or initiated, or any building or use enlarged or extended, shall at the time of such construction or initiation as the case may be provide all parking spaces in accordance to requirements set forth in Section 32-105, which must have two spaces for a single-family dwelling.

"Specifically, just to get it in the record...if you can't meet the parking standards you currently have, you can't have the ADU until you meet the spaces you're required to have plus an additional one for the ADU. That's clearly my intent of what I'm trying to do here," added Hanley

Responded Trombley, "Although with that noted, just, in addition, if they did want to do it and couldn't meet the parking department, they could always go before the zoning and planning board to get that waiver. It's only that as a by right use they have to meet that one addition to what they would owe to the town."

During the meeting, Town Council President Joseph DePasquale, as Hanley had also done previously, expressed his dismay with the General Assembly's seemingly heavy-handed approach to housing issues. How the state's new guidelines have usurped the ability and authority of municipalities to manage the situation in a manner best suited to their own circumstances.

After the meeting, DePasquale elaborated on his earlier comments, saying, "I feel that for 15 years of my service on the council, we worked hard to create zoning districts that took into account the best use for our designated areas. And then the affordable housing kick started. And in the beginning, you thought it may be a good thing, and then you start looking at how it's peeled away layer by layer your hard work in creating and maintaining your comprehensive plan and your zoning districts. We've always tried to make sure that there were areas that were available for commercial use, manufacturing use, business and now it seems that any area over a matter of time is going to be utilized as housing."

DePasquale said the adaptive reuse clause instituted at the state level, allowing for the redevelopment of former manufacturing structures into housing, is what brought his attention to the issue even further.

"What blows my mind is that we were talking about ADUs and where you supposedly couldn't do it. And then we were corrected, that, no, ADUs can be utilized anywhere, and especially when I brought out the fact that adaptive reuse is now a manufacturing area," DePasquale said. "It baffles me. I don't get it."

DePasquale said currently he believes Warren, for instance, has a good balance between residential and commercial locations. But state laws like adaptive reuse could put that in peril.

"When you look at the percentage of Warren, that is manufacturing and business. It's a huge. To think that at any time, any one of them could decide to pack up shop, and now you have an adaptive reuse is mandatory. I just don't know where it's coming from," DePasquale added. "It pushes me closer and closer to want to be a voice at the state house. Because it seems to me that all I hear and all I live is what they want to do supersedes what we've done and impacts what we want to do. I don't understand how a town can be just overwhelmed with state regulations and state law that directly overrides our plans. I don't know why that's legal."

DePasquale said he isn't opposed to ADUs in general. They certainly have a role to play in helping alleviate the housing shortage along with providing homeowners with additional means to pay back their notes.

"I do believe there's aspects of ADUs that is positive," elaborated DePasquale. "I know someone. She happened to be the first person in Warren with an ADU. It was a garage that was bigger than what she needed, and no additional expanse on the property. The building was already there, maybe a little addition. And it allowed her the flexibility and the positivity of paying her mortgage. That doesn't seem to blow my mind.

"What blows my mind is how you start looking at how the ADU can be attached to areas where for years we've tried to maintain the zoning requirements, so people could live in that area. I haven't really seen it play out yet, but all this over the past year us having to modify it, bringing it in as an ordinance, trying to make sense of it. That's what we're talking about."