Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety And Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tiverton council tables proposed changes to open-burning rules after public health and enforcement debate
Summary
Councilor Camino’s proposed revision to the town’s open-burning ordinance prompted public questioning and technical discussion with the fire marshal; the council agreed to table the measure to allow staff to rework language and return with recommended amendments.
The Tiverton Town Council on Monday heard extended public comment and a fire-department briefing on a proposed revision to the town’s open-burning ordinance and agreed to table the matter for further drafting and public notice.
Councilor Camino introduced the item as a modification to the calendar dates that currently prohibit open burning. The proposal would have removed the existing seasonal prohibition and replaced it with a permit-based approach; council discussion and the fire marshal’s presentation led to adjustments being suggested in real time (for example, preserving a prohibition during the driest months and limiting daily permits).
Multiple residents urged the council not to expand burning during summer months, citing smoke-related health impacts (asthma and COPD), the nuisance of odors, and the reality that people sometimes burn without a permit. A written submission read into the record urged protection of residents’ right to breathe clean air and noted the limited municipal-court enforcement capacity in the past.
Tiverton Fire Marshal Dan Murphy briefed the council on what the department recommended: preserve a summer prohibition for the driest months (the working group suggested July and August), limit permits per day, set allowable hours, and add a minimum setback from property lines for permitted brush burning. Murphy also asked the council to remove arrest authority from the ordinance while the town instead pursues municipal-court fines and education; he said the department would continue to educate and respond to nuisance calls.
Councilors discussed options: advance the item as proposed and amend later, or table the draft to let the solicitor and department refine language. Given the number of substantive changes under consideration and public concern, the council voted to table the proposed ordinance and directed staff (the solicitor, the administrator and the fire department) to collaborate on revised language for re-advertisement.
The council did not change the current enforcement posture immediately; any new ordinance will require fresh advertisement and another public hearing.
