The creation of an 86-acre commercial development along Route 1/Tower Hill Road in South Kingstown has become a battleground for town officials and some local residents. The proposed development is called the Village at South County Commons.
It has stirred the emotions of local business owners and residents, resulting in picket lines and petitions. But town officials maintain the proposal meets the criteria set by the town’s Comprehensive Plan, approved in 1992. They also assert that it could bring in close to $700,000 in tax revenues annually.
Beyond Cash Donations: How New Forms of Giving Are Transforming Not-for-Profit Accounting
Evolving Funding Landscape for Not-for-Profits Not-for-profit organizations are being asked to do more with less,…
Learn More
The plan has already received unanimous approval from the South Kingstown Town Council and has the support of the South Kingstown Chamber of Commerce.
“When we did the Comprehensive Plan in 1992 we realized that less than one half of 1 percent of available land in the town was zoned for commercial use,” said Anthony Lachowicz, director of planning for South Kingstown. “The town decided then that they didn’t want to stop any future commercial development. Instead, they decided the best thing to do was to limit it to one area.”
The idea of limiting that area for commercial development outside of “downtown Wakefield” has some residents and business owners concerned. In fact, three different appeals have been filed with the South Kingstown Zoning Board to stop the development. The appeals are expected to be heard later this month.
“All of the comments I have heard from business owners around here have been negative,” said Dennis Bell, owner of Keen Casual Shoes on Main Street. “A lot of people are afraid that people will make the turn there and not get off in Wakefield anymore. It is going to create business sprawl.”
Scott Wolf, executive director of Grow Smart Rhode Island, said that although his organization hasn’t taken an official position either opposing or agreeing with the proposed plan, he believes there are both positive and negative aspects.
“It seems as though it is a very close call as to whether it’s a good development or not,” he said. “It appears to support some mixed use development which is in an area that the town has designated for economic development, both things our organization supports, but there is a concern that this kind of development could draw business opportunity out of the Wakefield business district.”
In 1996, developer Alex Petrucci submitted a development plan proposal that would have created a 70-lot residential development. The plan received Master Plan approval, but during the process it was pointed out to the landowner that the town had designated the site for a different use in its Comprehensive Plan. Petrucci offered to put his plans for a residential development on hold, while the town explored other options for the property.
“That proposal was approved, but the developer at the request of the planning board decided to hold-off on the construction,” Lachowicz said. “In the spirit of cooperation he agreed, and came back with another plan for the property.”
In addition, Lachowicz said, the original proposal for 70 new homes would have cost the town financially. It costs the town more than $6,000 per household annually to fund education expenses alone.
“In an effort to balance our books we needed to broaden the scope of the area to include business.”
The new plan, now know as the Village at South County Commons included the designation of the 152.7-acre site as the Route 1 Special Management District.
According to Lachowicz, the purpose of the Special Management District is to provide an area for “economic development and diversity of land uses while preserving the scenic roadside” views from Route 1.
Lachowicz said the parcel along Route 1 was chosen because of its size, its location along a major highway, and the fact that it would have independent sewer and water lines.
According to Lachowicz the plan also “perfectly” fit with the designation set by the Comprehensive Plan which said the area should emphasize office, research development activities, institutional uses, nursing homes and elderly housing, golf courses, educational uses and service industry as opposed to retailing.
The Comprehensive Plan does allow for some residential use but states “one of the purposes of this district is to discourage the platting of conventional subdivisions in these areas.”
David DiPrete, of DiPrete Engineering in Cranston, said the current design encompasses a variety of uses including an assisted living facility, restaurants, some retail space, office space, a movie theater and a day care center with its own playground. The total cost of the project is estimated at $70 million.
There are eight districts to the proposal: District 1 includes mixed use retail and office; District 2 is residential; District 3 is assisted living/industrial; District 4 is office, commercial, light industrial and light industrial; District 5 is light industrial, commercial, office, and institutional; District 6 is residential; and Districts 7 and 8 are passive and active open space.
In total, only about 8 percent of the entire area will be designated retail, about 10 percent will be assisted living, another 10 percent will be residential and 42 percent will be commercial space. According to the proposal, the remaining percentage will be left as open space within the development. Part of the commercial is also labeled light industrial, which Lachowicz said could open the space up to companies like American Power Conversion – which is headquartered in nearby West Kingston.
All of the districts have gained Planning Board approval except for 5 and 6, DiPrete said. Before gaining the approval of the planning board, the Master Plan was the subject of more than 30 public hearings over a period of almost three years.
The project has also received approval from the state Department of Environmental Management, and the state Department of Transportation.
“Though much of the property is wetlands, the developer isn’t building on any portion of them,” DiPrete said.
As for traffic concerns, DiPrete said they are going to be there anyway. In addition, he said, the development is “not envisioned to attract people from Warwick,” but instead it is designed to be utilized “mostly by people already living in the area.”
There has been some misunderstanding and some misstatements from people that this is going to be a mall, but it’s not a mall. It is modeled after a traditional New England village,” Diprete said.
Still, Marcie Saywell, owner of Saywell’s on Main Street, said the size and scope of the plan could have a real impact on the town.
“It is similar to a strip mall,” she said. “I don’t think that the whole things is appropriate for this area. I don’t like to see all that open space developed.”
Bell agreed. “People came down here to get away from the business sprawl,” he said. “When you open land up like that you create a domino effect.”
But Lachowicz said creating commercial development space is necessary.
“I don’t disagree that there is going to be some impact on the town,” he said. “But the question is whether or not the town was large enough to support the expansion of business. The 1992 Comprehensive Plan showed us that it wasn’t.”
Wolf said, like many municipalities in the state, South Kingstown is quite dependent on tax revenues to support education.
“The whole question that this raises is to what extent are towns forced or pressured into making these kinds of decisions about development,” he said. “Most towns are interested in commercial development instead of residential development because it provides more fiscal net. The concern that we have is that communities are sometimes forced or feel they are forced to promote a wide variety of commercial developments without looking at some of the long-term effects. They are under such pressure to balance the books and generate tax revenue primarily to pay for schools, that they may not feel they have the luxury of taking the long view.”
