WARREN — The issue of accessory dwelling units, "ADUs" for short, is becoming a larger topic of discussion around the state, including here in Warren, as the revised housing laws passed by the General Assembly in recent years begin to take full effect.

The initial bills, sponsored in part during the 2024 session in the House of Representatives by local legislator June Speakman (Dist. 68, Warren and Bristol), had a declared intention to "boost production of an affordable housing option."

Commonly referred to as "in-law apartments" or "granny flats," the ADU law was implemented as a means of allowing the conversion of parts of an existing structure on a property into accommodations or to allow for either a currently-attached building to be remodeled into a suitable dwelling or a new detached edifice to be built entirely.

More recently, town residents expressed their concerns about the matter at council and zoning boards meetings.

Victor Westgate and Lisa Cowley, who reside on Wheaton Street, and Scott Mlynek, who live in a Manning Street parcel, spoke at the May town council gathering.

Westgate noted while the intention is for ADUs to solve one worry, they may create another. He elaborated, "...With every solution, there's always a tendency by some to take advantage of a good solution with an inappropriate response. ADUs are designed to provide housing to family members who may be unable to fully manage a household on their own, or can no longer afford said premises on their own income. ADUs when properly implemented can be helpful."

Westgate, et al, were speaking specifically about a property in their neighborhood being listed for sale with an inducement of potential ADU use. However, they noted there isn't sufficient parking and may not have enough legal space to do so.

"The new state law passed by the Rhode Island Legislature in 2024 concerning ADUs is now in place. We believe it is up to you, our town board, to make sure its regulations are followed, and inappropriate variances to it not allowed. Two potential abuses of this new regulation on ADUs concerns owner related occupancy and off-street parking requirements," said Westlake.

He continued, "Please don't make this obvious issue worse by allowing variances to off street marking, especially since said property at present has no off street parking, even for the main house, consisting already, with two apartments. The town boards adherence to the existing ADU regulations to us are a clear signal to those of us living in the historic district, whether the town will show preference to its existing residence or potential investors."

Mlynek concurred with much of what Westgate said, adding the specific location being discussed was on the market for a near $1 million and that it appeared as though it was more a vehicle to make money than to help ease the local housing crunch.

"So, I've been doing a lot of reading about the ADUs, and my purpose, much like Victor's, is mostly to make the town of Warren aware of what is happening. This is a great thing, ADUs, that wants to make housing affordable for people at Olivia. I'm sure we're all aware that the elderly are pretty much being taxed out of their homes," said Mlynek. "Taxes are going up higher and higher, and a lot of people on fixed incomes. And ADU allows that or gives that opportunity to have a little bit more money coming in from another family member, or live there in that ADU, while the rest of the family lives there."

Referring to the real estate listing, Mlynek read, "it is an ideal, not only for a secondary suite or guesthouse, but also for a condo conversion."

He concluded his remarks with the following, "And the creation of a family compound. This suggests the intent is not to provide affordable or needed housing, but to increase profit potential and track high end development. That's what I need the town to be aware of and going forward, any legislation that can be added or explained to the public of why this is allowed to that we can digest it more easily."

The residents found a compassionate ear from Councilor John Hanley, whose day job is as the building inspector for the City of Pawtucket.

"The ADU is the state law. It removed the owner occupied and the relative right out of it. That's not even an option we can consider, and we can't change our zoning ordinance to require that...I deal with these extensively in the cities of Pawtucket and Central Falls. And you want to talk about chaos. Central Falls has absolutely no parking requirements whatsoever.

"And these ADU units are not helping the people that the state intended them to help. These are all for developers, that stuff in another unit wherever they can fit it and get more rent. The state is in such a rush to try to solve this problem. They're creating more problems. So I'm totally against the laws that they changed, but you need to address all your comments to your state reps, and your state senator, because they're the ones that do these laws. When the state passes these laws, there are very minor things we can tweak."

Brief zoning meeting mention
The potential of an ADU situation occurring was also raised during the May zoning board meeting when a Sachem Street resident requested and eventually received approval for a variance to construct an accessory structure, a two-car garage, in the front yard of the property.

A neighbor wondered if the change might eventually lead to the new building being converted into housing sometime down the line. The board replied it could because of the ADU laws.

Said Chairman Andrew Ellis, "I would say we can't restrict future development of this garage because state law may allow for a garage to be converted into an apartment at some future time, and the state law would take precedence. 
So we can only, this board can only approve what's on paper, but the owner is still retains any rights under state law for future development."

Speakman's thoughts
From her perspective being among the sponsors of the package of legislation passed at the General Assembly both last year and this, Speakman admitted they are still in its early stages of implementation and she wasn't quite yet been able to offer up an opinion on how things are going.

She plans to study the issue more in depth once the current 2025 session concludes at the end of the month and vowed to have better grasp on the specifics in a month's time.

Speakman, though, pointed out Rhode Island Housing, the state agency tasked with oversight, is well into providing guidance on the issue to cities and towns through its Municipal Technical Assistance Program (https://www.rihousing.com/mtap).

As well, she noted property owners do not have carte blanche to build new ADUs. A 20,000-square foot property size mandate must be met as well as other parameters. Also, for existing structures to be converted, owners still must get proper local building permits and the site must be capable of handling such things as added use of utilities.

"If it's on a lot that's not new, for example, you have to make sure that the septic system can deal with another bathroom and kitchen. So all of that stuff applies," Speakman continued, referencing the Sachem Street example. "But again, to the specific question of whether a garage you build today can be made into an ADU next year. The answer is, yes, it can."

As for the downtown area parcel cited, Speakman said a property there is a location for which the new housing laws were aimed. She called it an already "dense neighborhood...that's designed to have a lot of people living it. So if someone, if there's a freestanding garage and the new owners buy that and convert the garage into an apartment, that's what the law intends.

"That's sort of the least impactful. You're not building anything new. You're putting more people on the property, which is the goal of all of this 'pro-density' legislation is to put more people on the property. And that's instead of building a whole new house somewhere out in a cornfield. So it allows more people the opportunity to live downtown, which is great.

"People have every right to raise concerns about parking. I agree with that, and that's just something for the town to figure out how to manage. But that is the point of the law, to encourage what we call 'gentle density,' which is to increase housing units in a way that you don't really notice them.

"Now, if the neighbors oppose having four people living on the property instead of two, I get that as well. But that's a very dense neighborhood, and again, you're not building a second story or a third story on a home. You're just converting a garage into an apartment, so that's kind of the best application of the law in my view."