By EMMA BARTLETT

Cranston’s city planning commission voted April 5 to send a letter to the state opposing legislation that would prohibit single-family residential zoning in municipalities with populations of over 20,000 and mandate that those municipalities adopt zoning regulations for middle housing in single-family residential zones.

Planning commission member Steve Frias introduced the matter at their April 5 meeting, suggesting that Cranston join other cities and towns such as Warwick, Smithfield and Burrillville which have sent letters to the House Municipal Government & Housing committee opposing the legislation.

Representatives Brianna Henries, David Morales, and Karen Alzate introduced the legislation which is meant to rezone areas formerly zoned as single-family; it would “expand the supply of affordable housing in urban areas, reduce homelessness and allow Rhode Island residents to access essential services more easily. It would also create the development of middle housing within areas formerly zoned as single-family areas and reduce the use of automobiles.”

If passed, municipalities with a population of more than 20,000 people would have to adopt the new land use regulations or amend its comprehensive plan no later than June 30, 2023. Since Cranston has a population of 80,000 people, the city must allow the development of all middle housing types (duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters and townhouses) in areas zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single-family dwelling. Additionally, this legislation would allow for the development of a duplex on each lot or parcel zoned for residential use that allows for development of detached single-family dwellings.

Frias said the legislation does not have a high probability of passage, however, if passed, it could potentially impact Cranston.

The commission agreed that these zoning issues were best left to the municipalities to determine what’s best and that the legislation takes away the rights of local zoning and is not an appropriate piece of legislation.