Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Traffic Parking Westworth Manor topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

West Warwick council continues Westworth Manor parking ordinance after public objections

5023912 · June 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The West Warwick Town Council continued a second-reading traffic ordinance affecting Manor Drive to July 8 after residents and council members raised concerns about loss of visitor parking, measurement errors in the draft, and requests for more information from the traffic commission and housing authority.

The West Warwick Town Council on an initial vote continued the second reading of a traffic ordinance proposing restricted parking on Manor Drive near Westworth Manor to its July 8 meeting after residents and some council members urged more study and clarification.

The ordinance as drafted would change chapter 11 (Motor Vehicles and Traffic), article 2 (Operations), section 47 and add restricted routes to appendix C. Council members and residents objected to aspects of the proposed restrictions, especially on the easterly side of the street where tenant and visitor parking is relied on for events such as bingo nights at the Manor.

The council heard extended discussion from council members who said the draft contains the wrong date and conflicting measurement proposals: an earlier draft described a 120-foot restriction, a later version reduced that to 69 feet, and at least one council member proposed a 20-foot restriction near the entrance as a compromise. Major Kevin Ketchum and “Jay” (as identified on the record) said they had measured the street with the traffic commission and that several versions of the ordinance were circulated.

Several residents said loss of on-street visitor parking would make it difficult for family and guests to attend organized events at the Manor. Melissa Barr, a resident who said she lives on Plainfield Pike and works on Manor Drive, told the council she photographed existing “no parking” signs and said parking demand on bingo nights and for resident visitors is already high. Another resident who said he has lived near the Manor for 52 years said congestion has increased in recent years and expressed public-safety concerns about emergency vehicle access.

Council members also noted the traffic commission returned a recommendation that would restrict much of the street; others said the commission and the council’s measurements differed. One council member said they had received a letter from the Manor in support of restrictions but that he had not seen the letter before the meeting. Council members asked that the town obtain that letter and additional pictures and that the traffic commission and the housing authority coordinate so the council can make an informed decision.

Rather than proceed to final passage, a councilmember moved to continue the item (Agenda item H‑2) to the July 8 meeting to allow the traffic commission and town staff to reconcile measurements, provide the Manor’s letter, and gather additional public input. The motion carried on a voice vote. No formal vote on the ordinance text occurred at the June meeting.

Council members and residents asked staff to supply collision or safety data if available and to identify whether business parking or use of adjacent municipal lots contributed to the congestion. The council said the continued hearing will present a single ordinance text (as advertised) so any amendments can be considered at the next meeting without re-advertising.

The council did not adopt any restriction at the June meeting. The ordinance will return to the council on July 8 with additional documentation and with possible amendments based on further measurements and public input.