South Kingstown discusses mandatory form‑based code to reshape Old Tower Hill Road
Loading...
Summary
Consultants presented a proposed form‑based zoning code for Old Tower Hill Road that would substantially expand buildable area on commercial parcels, add upper‑floor housing and prioritize storefronts and pedestrian streets. Council and public debate centered on whether the code should be mandatory or optional, grandfathering for existing businesses, parking and traffic, and financial impacts.
Consultants from Able City East and Daedalus Advisory Services told the South Kingstown Town Council at a work session that a form‑based code for Old Tower Hill Road would shift the area from low‑density, parking‑dominated development toward walkable mixed‑use blocks and could unlock meaningful private investment and additional property tax revenue.
The presentation, led by Jason King of Able City East and economist Sean Bourgeois of Daedalus, laid out the project’s public‑engagement history, design metrics and sample pro formas. King said the code focuses on building form and street design — frontage, continuous street walls, sidewalks and storefronts — rather than prescribing uses. Bourgeois presented market statistics and site examples, saying the modeling shows higher net operating income and stronger returns under the proposed code because developers could expand building envelopes and add residential units above ground‑floor commercial space.
"So to simplify, I keep saying you go from 30 to 90," Jason King said, describing the broad range of proposed lot‑coverage changes across different form‑based zones. "We're letting developers build on more, and in so doing, we're making these properties more profitable and more likely to redevelop." Bourgeois cautioned that the numbers are directional and depend on market assumptions; he said the team used standard real estate rules‑of‑thumb and that the slides and underlying tables could be shared with council staff.
Why it matters: Council members and residents framed the question as a tradeoff between creating a more walkable, tax‑productive commercial corridor and protecting longstanding, family‑owned businesses and existing nonconforming uses. Several councilors pressed for precise thresholds and enforcement rules — notably when an owner’s alterations would trigger the form‑based code — and asked for clearer data on likely new school‑age children and parking impacts.
Key policy points and contest: Planning Director Jamie Rabbit explained the project’s "substantial modification" thresholds: smaller buildings could add up to 10% without triggering full compliance; tiered thresholds apply for larger buildings so that modest additions do not force wholesale rebuilding. Rabbit and the consultants said a burned‑down building may be rebuilt without being forced into the new code, and waiver provisions consistent with Rhode Island law would remain available.
Council debate centered on whether the code should be mandatory across the study area or optional (an overlay landowner could elect to use). Proponents of a mandatory standard argued it offers predictability that encourages higher‑quality mixed‑use investment and protects developers from adjacent property owners choosing low‑quality alternatives. Opponents — including several property owners and a legal representative for Costanza Realty — warned that mandatory adoption could impose unaffordable compliance costs after calamity or create nonconforming uses, and they urged stronger grandfathering or alternative zoning approaches.
Public comment captured the split: residents and some business owners supported mandatory zoning for the long‑term character and potential tax and housing benefits, while legacy commercial owners (including a multi‑generation gas‑station operator and a representative for legacy property owners) asked for exemptions or slower triggers so ordinary repairs and small renovations would not carry full compliance costs.
What was not decided: The council did not vote on the ordinance or adopt final policy changes. Staff committed to incorporate feedback, circulate an updated draft ordinance and present revisions at an upcoming planning board workshop and to put an updated draft on the council packet ahead of the next meeting.
Next steps: Planning staff said they will post the full slide deck and provide the council with an updated draft ordinance and clarifications on grandfathering, use definitions, the substantial‑modification thresholds and the specific lot‑coverage figures for each transect. The council signaled it wants the revised draft in advance of the next meeting for further deliberation.
Representative quotes: "We're letting developers build on more, and in so doing, we're making these properties more profitable and more likely to redevelop," Jason King said, summarizing the design tradeoffs. "If you're tearing down a one‑story building and you can build up to three stories, that makes a project viable."
"When you make it mandatory, you're setting a vision for the future," Planning Director Jamie Rabbit said, arguing mandatory application creates shared expectations among neighbors. "If it's optional, you're going to get more of what you have today."
"If my building burns down, you are allowed to replace it without adherence to the form‑based code," Rabbit clarified in response to public concern about disaster‑driven rebuilding.
The council and staff will return with an updated draft ordinance, clarifications on the triggers for compliance and additional data requested by council members, including deeper school‑impact estimates and parking/traffic analyses.
