Narragansett officials begin moving 1969 urban redevelopment plan language into zoning code

NARRAGANSETT, R.I. — Town Council members and the Planning Board held a joint work session on Aug. 18 to review a consultant proposal to transfer land‑use provisions from the town’s 1969 urban redevelopment plan and its 11 subsequent amendments into the town zoning ordinance.

The project team, led by Jill Sabo of town staff and Sue Mara, AICP, of consultant Weston & Sampson, described the work as largely a transcription and organization effort intended to improve transparency and usability for staff, applicants and the public. “The intention with this change … is transparency,” Sabo said, and Mara described the effort as “a cut and paste exercise. We’re not changing anything,” though she noted there are formatting and a few technical edits required to make the language consistent with the ordinance.

Why it matters: The urban redevelopment plan contains land‑use rules that are currently scattered across the original plan and 11 amendments. Staff and the consultant said consolidating those rules into a single, ordinance‑style section will make requirements easier to find and enforce and will reduce administrative time for applicants and staff.

What the draft does: Weston & Sampson retyped the original plan and each amendment, produced a matrix mapping redevelopment‑plan provisions to existing zoning ordinance sections, and proposed moving the redevelopment language into a new special district in the zoning code. The consultant proposed modeling the special district on the town’s existing BA (general business) zone as a starting point, then tailoring the permitted‑use list, dimensional tables and parking/loading requirements to match the redevelopment plan language. Most changes are formatting or internal reference updates rather than substantive content edits, the presenters said.

Outstanding questions and guidance requested: Two substantive items were flagged for direction before the consultants produce a formal draft with redlines for legal review: - Approving authority: The redevelopment plan names the Narragansett Redevelopment Agency ("the agency") as the approving authority. Options presented were to leave the agency language intact (which would likely require reestablishing or confirming the agency’s legal status) or to make the Town Council the approving authority. Staff noted the council previously transferred powers by reference during a 2009 action tied to the plan’s 40‑year sunset; the consultants said town legal counsel should confirm the current legal status of any redevelopment agency before the ordinance language is finalized. - Landscaping standards: The redevelopment plan uses a general phrase for public/semi‑public areas (“all unpaved areas shall be landscaped”). Consultants recommended replacing that vague phrasing with the town’s existing, more specific landscaping standards used for commercial and multifamily development so that requirements are consistent across subdistricts. Several councilors and board members favored presenting both options in the formal draft so the boards can compare impacts.

Other details discussed: The team recommended converting narrative dimensional and parking standards into tabular format to match the ordinance style, and creating a single chapter/section of the ordinance that contains the redevelopment district rules so applicants would have a single, user‑friendly reference. Panelists discussed whether to base the new special district on BA (general business) or BB (a different business category), or to assemble a hybrid list of permitted uses taken from both zones; consultants said they can survey existing uses in the redevelopment area and present a comprehensive table of currently existing uses plus candidate additions for council/board review.

Process and next steps: The consultant will produce a draft ordinance that includes redlines and two options for the landscaping and approving‑authority questions. The town asked that the draft and supporting materials (original plan and amendments, and consultant iteration files) be circulated in advance of a follow‑up workshop so both boards and counsel can review. Staff said the grant that funded the work originally has a target closeout window and that the team would aim to finish the vendor deliverable in the coming weeks, with an expectation (staff noted) that the state would like the work wrapped up by the end of the calendar year. Legal review and the formal zoning‑amendment process (public hearings, council readings) will follow.

Outcome: No formal votes or ordinance amendments were adopted at the Aug. 18 work session. The council and planning board provided guidance to the consultant on the two outstanding issues and asked for a draft ordinance with redlines and supporting documents to be circulated for review before a joint follow‑up meeting.

Ending: The parties agreed the consolidation will likely improve transparency and streamline permitting if the legal questions about approving authority and any substantive use‑table changes are resolved. The consultant will return with a draft ordinance and marked changes for legal and board review.