Cranston Planning Commission Workshop on Housing Plan Amendments - August 26, 2025

On August 26, 2025, the Cranston Planning Commission held a workshop focused primarily on amendments to the city's comprehensive plan housing element and housing production plan. Chair Frias emphasized the urgency of submitting the comprehensive plan to the state for approval, noting that without state approval, affordable housing projects could face denial. The meeting also covered proposed zoning and subdivision regulation changes, but these were discussed as lower priorities. Public comments raised concerns about the rushed timeline, lack of public engagement, and the need for more rental housing and attention to homelessness.

Consent Calendar

• (No consent calendar items were discussed in the transcript.)

Public Comments & Testimony

• Annette Born (51 Community Drive) asked if the housing chapter is being submitted separately from the full phase two comprehensive plan. Chair Frias confirmed the intent is to amend the already-approved comp plan with this chapter and submit quickly. She expressed disappointment that all ward workshops have not yet been completed, arguing this diminishes the plan's value for the 80,000 residents. She noted that some goals appear contradictory and called for quantifiable evidence of how numeric housing goals would be met. She flagged policy H2 (maintaining rural densities where desired despite public infrastructure) as inconsistent with smart growth principles. She urged the commission to pressure the city council to fill three vacancies on the housing commission.
• Amy Raynone (67 Valley Street) disclosed she is an employee of Rhode Island Housing but spoke as a private individual and housing commission member. She echoed concerns about public engagement and noted that housing commission members were not notified of the documents or meeting. She called for more emphasis on rental opportunities and pointed out that the plan had no mention of homelessness. She criticized preserving density rather than increasing it, stating that existing built character often allows higher density than current zoning. She supported parking reform, suggesting builders should be free to determine parking needs.
• Sam Brusco (11 Amber Circle) argued that terms like "character" and "density" are dog whistles for NIMBYism. He pointed out that rising housing prices prevent children who grow up in Cranston from affording homes there. He questioned whether corporate ownership of single-family homes or Airbnb regulation are addressed (Chair Frias noted these are governed by state law). He supported converting commercial parking minimums to maximums to allow more effective land use.
• Christina Brown (217 Armington Street) , a housing commission appointee, stated she learned of the meeting only late in the afternoon. She noted that Cranston has many children under 18, and the commission's decisions will determine who can live there in the future. She warned that not building new housing will displace working families and exacerbate flooding risks, as new homes are built to modern codes. She endorsed parking reform and emphasized that builders will build what the market needs. She urged the commission to consider who they want to live in Cranston in the future.
• Bob Murray (11 Amber Circle) — an attorney who represents developers—commended the planning staff and commission but questioned the rushed timeline. He argued that the state's housing goals are "pie in the sky" and unachievable, citing his own Cranston Printworks project as an example: approved in 2022 for 129 units, then reduced to 100, with building permits still not obtained. He noted the building department lacked staff/expertise to review plans, requiring a third-party consultant at developer expense. He pleaded with the commission to take a "deep breath" and not jam the plan through.
• Director (responding to Mr. Murray) agreed that processes need to be streamlined and recognized there are years of work ahead, not one quick fix.

Discussion Items

• Comprehensive Plan Housing Element & Housing Production Plan: Director presented the draft, noting goals were rewritten as statements, with a table mapping policies to goals. Chair Frias proposed several minor changes including adding a goal about Cranston maintaining its suburban character while allowing mixed-use/transit-oriented density; and adding "at least 15 units per acre" language for the transit-oriented development zone to avoid a key metric being struck down by state planners (staff argued capping at 15 could prevent reaching housing goals). Commissioner Lampier expressed concerns about legal non-conforming uses being distinguished from illegal ones; and about reducing off-street parking requirements too broadly, preferring strategic implementation. Chair Frias opposed including a full inclusionary zoning ordinance as an appendix before state approval, fearing council would have to revisit it if state required changes. Director argued that waiting risks falling behind the five-year housing goal; Chair Frias countered that if all parties work quickly, it can be done efficiently. The future land use map was not yet ready; Director noted new state-required categories. The schedule of ordinances was under development.
• Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Chair Frias stated he had not reviewed these before the meeting and considered them a much lower priority than the comprehensive plan amendments. He noted that many changes are to comply with recent state law, but some go beyond what is required. He specifically questioned changes to the Development Plan Review (DPR) process, which proposes deleting 14 pages of zoning code and replacing them with a shorter section. Chair Frias expressed concern about eliminating public notice requirements for DPR meetings (since the requirement would move to subdivision regulations) and about DPR being granted authority to waive subdivision regulations. The solicitor noted DPR itself is not state-mandated, though some supporting changes are. Commissioners agreed the DPR revisions could be deferred to autumn.
• Subdivision Regulations: Staff presented numerous amendments, many directly pulled from state law. Chair Frias stated he had not yet reviewed them and wanted the solicitor to verify they do not exceed state requirements. He insisted that public hearings for preliminary plans remain explicitly required.

Key Outcomes

• The commission will hold a public hearing on the comprehensive plan housing amendments on September 2, 2025. No vote was taken at this workshop. Written comments will be accepted.
• The zoning ordinance and subdivision regulation amendments will be scheduled for October or later, after the comprehensive plan is forwarded to the city council.
• Staff will provide commissioners a table indicating which ordinance/subdivision changes are required by state law and which are discretionary.
• Commissioners requested draft documents be provided in editable (Word) format for easier amendment preparation.
• The commission adjourned at approximately 8:30 PM after a motion by Commissioner Coop, seconded by Commissioner Carrero, passed unanimously (voice vote).