Trisha Hilton, chair of the Tiverton Planning Board, told a packed public workshop that the planning board and the town's zoning update committee have finished an 18‑month review and "voted to send these to the Tiverton Town Council," and that the board would not vote again at the workshop. The council will hold a public hearing on Feb. 10.

The proposal divides the existing Waterfront District into two new districts, Waterfront 1 and Waterfront 2, updates the municipal use table, and replaces many special‑use permit processes with specific, use‑by‑use performance standards designed to comply with recent changes in Rhode Island law. "This divides the waterfront zone, to into 2 zones, creating Waterfront 1 and Waterfront 2," consulting planner Ashley Sweet said while summarizing the proposal for residents.

Why it matters: the update would change what uses are allowed by right, clarify dimensional rules and height limits, and aim to reduce long‑standing nonconforming status for some residential properties near the water. Residents asked whether the changes would allow industrial activity, affect small waterfront businesses, or open properties to new commercial uses if current proprietors sell.

Key elements of the proposal
- Split of waterfront: The Waterfront District would be divided into Waterfront 1 (higher‑intensity marine/commercial) and Waterfront 2 (lower‑impact, village‑scale uses). The planners said they tried to preserve existing waterfront character while creating space for village‑style commercial activity and limited marine‑related industry.
- Use tables and performance standards: The draft moves many items that had required a special‑use permit into the use table with associated performance standards (Article 6 in the draft). Planners said the change responds to a 2023 state law requiring specific, objective criteria for special permits and that the performance‑standards approach is intended to allow the town to require mitigation while complying with the new law.
- Manufacturing and "marine‑related" limits: The draft retains manufacturing, storing, processing and fabrication as permitted uses only where they meet the ordinance's performance standards and where those activities are "marine related." Speakers repeatedly stressed that those activities would be limited by size, setbacks, lot coverage and other conditions; Ashley Sweet said Waterfront 2 would cap the aggregate footprint of structures at 10,000 square feet and Waterfront 1 would allow up to a larger aggregate footprint under the draft.
- Grandfathering and nonconforming uses: Planning staff emphasized that existing legal uses would remain grandfathered; many speakers sought confirmation that longstanding businesses would be allowed to continue. The draft also shifts some developed cottage colonies and other small residential parcels out of the waterfront designation and into residential zoning where possible to reduce nonconforming status.
- Regulatory overlays remain: The board and staff advised residents that state and federal resource controls still apply—Rhode Island's Coastal Resources Management Commission (CRMC) regulates activities seaward of the mean high water line, and the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) requirements for low‑impact development and stormwater control still apply to site plans and subdivisions.

What residents asked and how staff responded
- Industry on the waterfront: Public commenter Jamie French raised a specific concern that the 93‑page draft shows "manufacturing, storing, processing, and fabrication" as allowed. Trisha Hilton and Ashley Sweet responded that the ordinance treats "industry" as a category, not a single unrestricted use; they said only marine‑related manufacturing that meets the draft's performance standards and size limits would be realistic in the waterfront areas. Todd Romano, the land‑use legal consultant, added that CRMC designations for various waters (for example, high‑intensity boating versus recreational harbors) also constrain what can be sited at the water's edge.
- Village commercial pockets and spot‑zoning concerns: Several residents with businesses near Stonebridge, White Wine Plaza and Don's Marine asked why some parcels were moved into Waterfront 2 or general commercial. Planners said they grouped already‑commercial parcels into cohesive commercial pockets to reduce inconsistencies where different rules applied across the street, and that where existing commercial uses exist they would remain lawful under the new zoning.
- Yacht club and marina properties: Owners and volunteers from local clubs asked why their parcels were not moved into Waterfront 2. Planners said they avoided "spot zoning" (isolating a single parcel in a differently zoned neighborhood) and weighed adjacency to residential lots and long‑term consequences if zoning allowed a wide array of future commercial uses.
- Low‑impact development (LID) and wetlands: Staff emphasized that DEM's LID manual governs stormwater and site‑design techniques (rain gardens, infiltration, runoff reduction) and does not itself prohibit commercial uses. DEM review is required for projects that trigger its thresholds; CRMC governs coastal structures and uses. The board agreed to consider referencing the Mount Hope Bay Low Impact Development guidance in future rounds of edits.
- Timing and appeals: Staff said the draft ordinance, if adopted by the Town Council, was proposed to take effect immediately on passage but that a statutory appeal period (described at the workshop as roughly 30 days) would allow legal challenges.

Next steps and how to participate
The planning board noted the zoning update and the amended future land‑use map have already been forwarded to the Town Council and that the public hearing on the zoning package is scheduled for Feb. 10. Board members and staff encouraged residents with parcel‑specific questions to meet with planning staff and to testify at the council hearing. Several participants were also reminded that the planning board will separately hear two comprehensive‑permit residential applications at its Tuesday meeting (Suzer Road and Friendship Farms); the board will treat those projects under the state's comprehensive‑permit process.

Ending note: planning board members and staff said the zoning package is the result of a long, iterative process and that additional zoning tranches (for general commercial, highway commercial, industrial, village commercial zones and residential details) are expected in subsequent rounds. "This is not the end," Ashley Sweet said; the board encouraged continued public participation and said changes can be proposed at the council and in future planning board reviews.