Little Compton town council members are reconsidering a recent vote that would have wide-ranging impacts on residents who are considering building an in-law apartment — also known as an accessory dwelling unit, or ADU — on their property.

After acknowledging that its Dec. 7 vote to ban new ADUs in town may have been too hasty, the Little Compton Town Council took steps on Thursday, Dec. 21 that, pending feedback from the planning board and the public, may result in a reversal of that decision. 

Prior to Dec. 7, the town’s zoning ordinance allowed ADUs on Little Compton properties of three acres or more. Property owners could add them to an existing home or above a garage, for example, as a way to assist family members or others in need of an independent living space.

Affordable housing advocates and others point to ADUs as one way to address the housing crisis, particularly in towns like Little Compton, where they say affordable rentals are virtually non-existent.   

Why ban them?

As part of an effort to conform to a host of new state laws that become effective on Monday, councilors had previously asked the planning board to weigh in on several recommended amendments to the zoning ordinance.

In addressing specific proposed changes to language that would impact ADUs, planners suggested in November that councilors consider two options — they could either revise their proposed language to include concerns about water and sewer capacity in town, and make other recommended changes, or they could ban new ADUs entirely by deleting any reference to them in the ordinance.

On Dec. 7, the council selected the second option by a vote of 4-1. While the vote did not impact existing ADUs, it meant no new ones would be allowed.

The decision resulted in a flurry of complaints from local residents, with some telling councilors the vote had wrecked their long-standing plans to build an ADU on their property at some point in the future.

Affordable housing advocates also protested the vote. Little Compton resident Victoria Talbot, in a letter to the Sakonnet Times, asked that the council reverse its decision. She noted that zero units of affordable housing are dedicated to seniors in town, and the student population is shrinking because young families can’t afford to live locally.

Gary Mataronas, the only councilor who voted on Dec. 7 to keep ADUs on the books, decided after the vote to research the matter further. At the Dec. 21 meeting, he reported on his findings and presented a document with revised draft language that, if ultimately approved, will mean new ADUs will once again be allowed.

Mataronas said his research included conversations with Senator Louis DiPalma (D-District 12) who told him the package of bills that become effective on Jan. 1 do not currently include regulations relating to ADUs, although the legislation is expected to be taken up very soon by state lawmakers.

Following that conversation, Mataronas approached the town solicitor, asking for draft language that would mirror what lawmakers will likely take up in the new legislative session.

The proposed language presented by Mataronas includes numerous restrictions, such as: new ADUs shall be on a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet; be designed for year-round occupancy; have a safe and adequate water supply as defined in the sub-division regulations; and have an on-site wastewater treatment system as approved by the state’s Dept. of Environmental Management. The proposed language also prohibits the use of short-term rentals (STRs) in ADUs by restricting any rentals for a period of less than 30 days.

After discussion, the council voted unanimously to forward the new document to the planning board for review and feedback, and to hold a public hearing on Thursday, Feb. 22, to hear from the community on the new proposal. At that point, or in the weeks that follow, a new council vote on ADUs is expected, and the Dec. 7 decision could be overturned.

The Dec. 21 action, said  council president Bob Mushen, means the community has another opportunity to “review, criticize, and change” the updated language in coming weeks and during the public hearing in February. 

Mataronas said afterwards he was pleased the council backed him on the new proposed language by agreeing to move it forward.

“As I’ve said before, ADUs are the only way to keep our seniors, children, and our ordinary residents living in this town.”