South Kingstown reviews conceptual affordable‑housing plans for three town‑owned sites

Town Manager Jim Manny convened a special work session to continue a series of workshops on developing affordable housing on three South Kingstown–owned parcels: South Road School, Wakefield Elementary School and the Oliver Watson property. Consultants from Union Studio and The Peregrine Group presented refined site concepts, unit mixes and preliminary financial models, and council members and the public discussed priorities, next steps and likely funding gaps.

The review follows a January 29, 2025 public workshop and a statewide “Housing 2030” report cited by town staff showing the state recommendation that South Kingstown construct 477 housing units in five years, including 72 affordable units. Jeremy Lake, principal with Union Studio, and Eric Bush, managing partner at The Peregrine Group, said their work is illustrative — intended to show what might be feasible and to help the town prepare request‑for‑proposals (RFPs) for development partners.

South Road School: neighborhood‑scale homeownership concept

Union Studio presented a hybrid scheme for the South Road School parcel that leans toward cottage‑scale homeownership with some duplexes. Jeremy Lake said the revised plan pulls the first row of homes back from South Road, extends Chestnut Hill Road into the site to create a direct connection to the park and sled hill to the east and shows a mix of 30 cottages and 14 duplexes (44 units shown as illustrative). The design includes a linear green at the front, a small common green and pedestrian connections through to the public parking and park beyond.

Peregrine’s financial model put the total project scale for the South Road concept at roughly $29 million, inclusive of an infrastructure estimate of about $5 million (demolition, site remediation, sewer/utility extensions and roadway work). The consultants modeled a baseline affordability mix with 50% of units income‑restricted (22 of 44 units at about 80–100% area median income, or AMI) and the remainder market rate; that scenario produced a preliminary funding shortfall on the order of 10% under the model assumptions. Eric Bush said that a combination of municipal infrastructure investment, state programs (for example through Rhode Island Housing), other grants and some adjustment of unit mix could close or lessen that gap.

Oliver Watson property: cottage court and preserved house

For the Oliver Watson parcel, Union Studio presented a scheme that reserves the existing Watson house on its own ~20,000‑square‑foot lot and places a cottage court of roughly 13 additional units behind it. The plan concentrates parking and preserves trees and buffer areas along the neighbor side; Lake said the layout is intended to read like two additional single‑family homes from the street with a courtyard revealed behind them.

Peregrine modeled the Oliver Watson concept as smaller in scale and lower in absolute infrastructure cost: the consultants used a nominal acquisition placeholder of about $200,000 and an infrastructure/order‑of‑magnitude figure in the low hundreds of thousands (presented in discussion as roughly $330,000) to ready the parcel for development. The consultants and some council members noted septic and other site constraints need engineering study; staff cautioned the town should not sell the Watson house until a more refined design and engineering review confirm what land is needed for vehicular access, septic and turning radii.

Wakefield Elementary: mixed‑use option and parking tradeoffs

At Wakefield, Union Studio showed two smaller building footprints intended to relate to the historic grammar‑school precedent and the park edge: an orange building oriented to the park that could be mixed‑use with about 8,000 square feet of commercial at ground level and residential above, and a second, primarily residential building farther into the lot. The illustrative program totaled about 44 residential units (largely studios and one‑bedrooms in the consultants’ example) plus roughly 8,000 square feet of commercial, with about 115 parking spaces shown (including roughly 16 spaces designated for park access and about 99 residential/commercial spaces).

Peregrine’s baseline for Wakefield estimated a funding shortfall around 15% under the consultants’ assumptions; the firm warned mixed‑use commercial in this location reduces near‑term financial viability because commercial square footage carries higher parking needs and, when financed without pre‑leased tenants, can pull down pro‑forma value. The consultants said the Wakefield site is flexible — if the town removes commercial uses or changes parking assumptions the scheme could be rebalanced (for example an all‑residential option at taller sections could increase unit counts to the mid‑60s in illustrations).

Finance, timelines and procurement

Eric Bush advised the council that the consultants’ models are illustrative and sensitive to assumptions about construction costs, parking, acquisition price and the number of income‑restricted units. As a benchmark he said today’s development cost environment typically implies $400,000+ to deliver a unit (figures used in the presentation ranged by site from roughly $400,000 to $600,000 per unit depending on building type and scope), which translates into rents or sale prices that may be higher than a workforce household can afford without subsidies.

Bush and Lake recommended next steps that were discussed by council and staff: (1) refine infrastructure engineering and cost estimates (demolition, environmental remediation, sewer and road work), (2) consider zoning or entitlement changes so RFPs can be prescriptive about scale and design, (3) decide whether to run one or more targeted RFPs (open vs. prescriptive), and (4) pursue state and federal program funds (for example Rhode Island Housing programs, HUD/CDBG grants and the 2024 statewide housing bond) plus municipal incentives such as targeted infrastructure investment, tax increment financing or time‑limited abatements. The consultants said projects at this scale commonly take multiple years before shovel‑ready status; one council member and staff repeatedly estimated a typical timeline of roughly two to three years to get a site prepared and then additional years for phased construction.

Public comment and council direction

Speakers from the public urged the council to prioritize deeper affordability and more year‑round rental housing: Bethany Sorrentino, chair of the town’s Affordable Housing Collaborative Committee, asked the council for clear guidance and offered committee support drafting RFP language aimed at maximizing low‑and‑moderate‑income (LMI) outcomes. Several residents who live near South Road praised the revised schematic that pulls homes back from the road and requested dedicated public parking for park access. Commenters also suggested transit access, shared parking strategies and nonprofit developers as tools to reduce capital needs.

No formal motions or votes were taken at the workshop. Council members and staff agreed to pursue the consultants’ recommended next steps: refine the infrastructure and engineering cost estimates for all three properties, continue community engagement, and return with more‑detailed cost models and procurement options to inform whether the town issues prescriptive RFPs or a more open developer competition. Staff and consultants emphasized the process will be iterative and sensitive to funding availability and state program priorities.