Consultant unveils Old Tower Hill Road neighborhood plan and draft form‑based code

Jason King, a principal with Able City East, presented the Old Tower Hill Road neighborhood plan and a draft form‑based code to the joint work session of the South Kingstown Town Council and Planning Board on Oct. 28. King said the draft, now at an advanced stage, translates charrette input and surveys into five guiding ideas—create high‑quality places, define a gateway into Wakefield and South Kingstown, design safe streets, increase access to nature and unlock development potential—and couples visual regulations with implementation tools.

King told the council the dominant regulatory barrier to redevelopment is lot‑coverage limits that currently restrict building to about 30% of a parcel. "If you go from allowing people to develop on, from 30% of their lot to 60%," King said, "our economists show that effectively doubles the buildable area on these sites." He described how allowing increased lot coverage with stronger open‑space and street‑facing building requirements could encourage mixed‑use storefronts with housing above and create a more walkable main‑street character.

The plan includes a recommended form‑based code (King said it is roughly 85–90% complete) that uses transect zones to step building heights down away from Route 1, places storefront build‑to lines and limits curb cuts. King illustrated the approach with New England precedents including Jamestown and Mashpee Commons and argued that graphics and pre‑approved building types can make the code easier to interpret for developers and neighbors.

Councilors pressed the consultant on several implementation points. One council member asked how to secure business community buy‑in given the code’s storefront, design and open‑space requirements; King responded that increasing developable area is the principal economic incentive and that one‑on‑one redraws and meetings with property owners often ease adoption. On parking, King said taller, mixed‑use redevelopment could be supported by structured parking if necessary and that residential upper floors typically need fewer off‑street spaces. On thresholds that trigger new code requirements, King said the draft uses a "substantial modification" test—commonly a 50% threshold tied to building value—so most routine repairs would not force owners into the new standards.

King and staff also outlined funding and governance tools for implementation, including tax increment financing and business improvement districts to fund streetscape work, and recommended creating a plan implementation committee to steward the next steps. The consultant emphasized that the form‑based code can be adopted as an appendix to the plan and later enacted by ordinance if the council wants mandatory requirements.

Next steps outlined by staff and the consultant included tailored revisions based on public input, closer review of the substantial‑modification definition for local circumstances, and outreach to property owners and developers. The presentation concluded with requests for public feedback before the plan moves to final adoption hearings.

The presentation anchored an extended Q&A with planning board members and councilors about timing, additional consultant work, and the extent to which the code might be phased or made optional in certain areas.

What’s next: staff will accept additional public comments and return with code refinements and an implementation timeline; the consultant indicated the legal ordinance to make the code effective would be a separate future step.