H5797 amends Rhode Island’s zoning ordinance statutes to expand and modernize the list of statewide zoning definitions and required local zoning provisions. The bill adds a formal definition of “co-living housing,” describing units with individually rented, lockable sleeping/living space that share sanitary and/or food-preparation facilities, and it clarifies that existing dwelling units may not be converted to co-living housing unless a local zoning ordinance specifically allows it. It also makes co-living housing one of the special provisions municipalities may address in their zoning ordinances, alongside other tools such as incentives, transfer of development rights, and transit-oriented community living options.
Beyond co-living housing, the bill makes broader changes to zoning law. It revises and expands definitions related to accessory dwelling units, adaptive reuse, manufactured homes, households, community residences, and other land-use terms. It also updates standard zoning provisions to allow municipalities to regulate development incentives, and it expressly states that slope of land may not be excluded from buildable lot area or minimum lot size calculations. The bill further provides that ADUs meeting statutory requirements are permitted uses in all residential zoning districts and must be handled through an administrative building permit process, and it confirms that plant agriculture is a permitted use in all zoning districts except where restricted for health, safety, or wildlife habitat reasons.
A major policy feature of the bill is its treatment of adaptive reuse. It requires zoning ordinances to allow conversion of certain commercial buildings, including offices, schools, religious facilities, medical buildings, and malls, into residential or mixed-use developments when at least 50% of the existing gross floor area becomes residential. The bill also limits parking requirements for these projects, allows higher density in certain cases, preserves existing setbacks and height as legal nonconformities, and permits co-living housing within adaptive reuse developments if building and fire code requirements are met. In addition, the bill allows municipalities to permit manufactured homes as single-family homes on lots zoned for single-family use, subject to dimensional requirements or relief.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it sets statewide zoning rules that municipalities must incorporate into local ordinances, especially for ADUs, households, community residences, co-living housing, adaptive reuse, and manufactured homes. It also narrows local discretion in some areas by making certain uses permitted statewide, while preserving municipal authority to set local minimum lot sizes and to regulate details through objective standards. The act is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears favorable, with the bill passing both chambers by clear margins. The available record shows strong support in the House and Senate, suggesting broad legislative agreement with the bill’s housing-supply and zoning-flexibility goals. The main point of contention is likely to have been the extent to which the bill limits local zoning control and expands higher-density or shared-living housing models, particularly co-living housing and adaptive reuse projects, though no committee transcript is available to identify specific objections.
The bill amends Chapter 24 of Title 45 governing municipal zoning ordinances by adding and revising statewide definitions and by requiring local ordinances to accommodate certain uses and development forms. It makes accessory dwelling units a permitted use in all residential zoning districts, authorizes co-living housing as a zoning option, requires allowance for adaptive reuse conversions under specified conditions, and permits manufactured homes as single-family homes on single-family lots subject to dimensional standards. It also updates zoning standards related to density, setbacks, height, lot size, and development incentives, thereby constraining some local zoning choices while preserving municipal authority over minimum lot size and certain local implementation details.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall, as reflected by substantial bipartisan or cross-chamber support in both recorded passage votes. The vote totals suggest that legislators generally viewed the measure as a housing and zoning modernization bill rather than a controversial overhaul. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the strong passage margins indicate that any concerns did not prevent approval.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s expansion of statewide zoning mandates and its effect on local control. Municipalities and zoning opponents may object to required allowances for ADUs, adaptive reuse, co-living housing, and manufactured homes, especially where these uses could increase density or alter neighborhood character. Supporters likely emphasize housing supply, reuse of underutilized buildings, and flexibility near transit and services, while critics may focus on parking, infrastructure capacity, neighborhood impacts, and the reduced discretion of local zoning authorities.