Letter: Town Defense of Route 102 and 2 Zoning is Convoluted and Misleading

As a member of Exeter’s Planning Board I found North Kingstown’s Director of Planning defense of the amendments to the North Kingstown Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Water Service Area as applied to the western intersection of Route 2 and 102 convoluted and misleading. The claim that this Rural Gateway proposal is in conformance with the NK Comprehensive Plan and SWP Land Use 2025 is false. The fact is that with Mr. Reiner’s guidance, the North Kingstown Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Water Service Map was amended to accommodate a single developer at the expense of North Kingstown residents as well as the future conservation of North Kingstown, Exeter and South County as a rural and agricultural region. The simple fact is that rather than having the developer conform to the NK Comprehensive Plan the NK Comprehensive Plan was amended to accommodate the developer.

As Exeter’s designated representative, I have raised many planning concerns and issues at various North Kingstown Public Hearings. Unfortunately, similar to North Kingstown residents expressed concerns it was apparent that a dialogue with a focus on legitimate and appropriate planning was falling on the deaf ears of the North Kingstown Town Council. Rather than addressing the planning issues I had raised the North Kingstown Town Council chose to discredit the messenger. As this process (or formality) progressed it became increasingly obvious that the Republican majority on the North Kingstown Town Council was promoting an agenda other than appropriate planning to preserve and enhance the rural character of this area.

Gateway to South County - Looking Northward

Additionally, it also came to light that the North Kingstown Planning Director was quietly requesting that RI Statewide Planning relocate the Urban Service Boundary further west towards Exeter. If successful, this action would surely promote the continuation of suburban sprawl and commercial strip development along Routes 102 and 2 deep into South County.

As a member of the Exeter Planning Board and an Architect it is disheartening to be a witness to the complicity of this ruse. I am on record as stating that there were more than only two scenarios possible for this area as recently indicated by the North Kingstown Town Manager. The Stakeholders Group were presented with five possible development scenarios of which the Conservation Design was the overwhelming choice as supported by both the stakeholders and residents alike. Once again, unfortunately, the Stakeholder Group and resident preferences were summarily ignored by both the North Kingstown Planning Director and Town Council. The claim that the choice of the Compact Village District (CVD) for this location was the consensus of the Stakeholder and residents alike is false.

In collaboration with North Kingstown residents I had graphically prepared a scenario variation that preserved this area as a bona fide Rural Gateway and transition between North Kingstown and South County as a whole. Additionally this collaborated scenario incorporates the abutting residential neighborhoods with pedestrian and bicycle access to all four quadrants of the intersection and enhances its character as a real neighborhood.

Unfortunately my efforts to present the below neighborhood friendly scenario was suppressed preventing me from presenting this variation to the study group. Along with North Kingstown residents, I and the Town of Exeter continue to look forward to a meaningful dialog with the goal of preserving and enhancing this area as a real Gateway to South County.