H7779 amends Rhode Island’s zoning law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to create a more detailed statewide framework for when ADUs must be allowed and what local governments may regulate. The bill requires municipalities to allow one ADU per lot by right in several circumstances, including on owner-occupied properties as a reasonable accommodation for family members with disabilities, on larger residential lots of at least 20,000 square feet, and where the ADU is contained within the existing footprint of a primary or accessory structure. It also sets uniform standards limiting what municipalities may prohibit or require, such as restrictions on family relationships, excessive fees, infrastructure upgrades, additional lot size requirements, or mandatory zoning relief for certain existing nonconforming structures.
The bill further bars municipalities from imposing many common ADU restrictions, including limits that would prevent ADUs in new subdivisions, cap them at one bedroom, require low- or moderate-income occupancy except in certain programs, or force removal of a legally established ADU when property ownership changes. It also voids private covenants that conflict with the statute, such as condominium or homeowners’ association rules that would otherwise prohibit ADUs, while preserving covenants that already allow them. At the same time, the bill preserves a role for local regulation by allowing municipalities to use unified development review and to exempt ADUs from some utility-related fees.
A key feature of the bill is that it gives municipalities optional authority, effective July 1, 2026, to adopt ordinances requiring owner occupancy of primary residences with ADUs for at least five years, requiring non-family ADUs to be rented at affordable rates, and limiting ADU size to 1,000 square feet. The bill explicitly states these provisions are enabling rather than mandatory, meaning cities and towns may adopt them but are not required to do so.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to standardize and expand the right to build ADUs across Rhode Island while limiting local zoning barriers that have historically made ADU development difficult. It would affect municipal zoning ordinances, land development review, housing policy, and private residential covenants, and it would likely increase the availability of smaller housing units, including units for family caregivers, people with disabilities, and potentially affordable rental housing. It also reinforces that ADUs may not be used for tourist or transient rentals.
Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears aimed at housing flexibility and local-option regulation rather than a mandate on municipalities, which may make it more palatable to some local governments while still drawing concern from those opposed to state preemption of zoning authority. Likely points of contention include the extent of state control over local zoning, the voiding of private association restrictions, the affordable-rent option for non-family ADUs, and the five-year owner-occupancy requirement that municipalities may choose to adopt.
This bill would amend § 45-24-73 of the Rhode Island General Laws to expand and clarify statewide rules for accessory dwelling units, limiting municipal discretion over ADU approvals and development standards while authorizing certain local restrictions by ordinance. It would affect zoning ordinances, land development review procedures, utility fee practices, and private covenants that conflict with the statute, and it would take effect July 1, 2026.
No committee discussion or voting history was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from recorded proceedings. The bill’s structure suggests a generally pro-housing, pro-ADU policy approach with some compromise elements that preserve limited municipal control, indicating it may be framed as a balance between housing expansion and local regulatory flexibility.
The main areas of potential contention are state preemption of local zoning authority, the bill’s restrictions on what municipalities may require for ADUs, and the provision voiding conflicting condominium or homeowners’ association rules. Opponents may object to limits on fees, parking, lot size, and infrastructure requirements, while supporters may favor the bill for reducing barriers to housing production and family caregiving arrangements. The optional local authority to require five years of owner occupancy, affordable rents for non-family ADUs, and a 1,000-square-foot cap may also be debated as either a useful safeguard or an unnecessary constraint.