Narragansett council withdraws 14 proposed zoning amendments after public hearing; plans workshops

The Narragansett Town Council voted unanimously Wednesday to close a public hearing and withdraw 14 proposed zoning amendments after hours of public comment and questioning from the council and the planning board.

Councilors closed the hearing and then voted 5-0 to withdraw the package of amendments, a move council members said was meant to create space for more detailed public workshops and clearer drafting. "I would like to make a motion to withdraw these amendments as proposed," the council recorded, and the motion passed 5-0.

The action came after residents, planning board members and town planning staff urged the council to slow the process and to handle changes one or two at a time. Mark Brady, chairman of the town planning board, told the council the board could not legally supply the kind of line-by-line replacements some residents expected: "You either give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to the entire thing," Brady said, explaining the limits the board faced on the referral it received from council. Brady also told the council most routine modification requests and FAR (floor-area-ratio) adjustments are handled administratively — "89% handled in house" for certain modifications and "94%" handled in house for FAR issues, he said.

Residents who testified described competing priorities. Alana Egan, a year-round resident and graduate student, urged the council to pursue more multifamily housing to keep young professionals and families in town: "We need higher density housing," she said, arguing that available year-round rentals and starter homes are scarce. Other residents expressed concerns about neighborhood character, sewer capacity and coastal protection; Cynthia Sequera Martin, chair of the Coastal Access Improvement Committee, warned changes to FAR and expansion rules could "embolden further encroachment" on public coastal rights of way and increase sewage flows.

Several speakers said the process felt rushed. Jill Lawther, addressing the council, produced earlier planning-board minutes and said Narragansett had already implemented many state-mandated zoning changes; she asked the council to be candid with the public about the reasons for new proposals. Former planning director Michael DeLuca told the council the town's existing zoning is in compliance with the state Zoning Enabling Act and said the draft amendments, as written, created multiple technical inconsistencies and omitted replacement language for critical procedures like site-plan review.

Council members said they were responding to public input. Councilor Colonies said he had pushed the review to comply with state expectations but now supported a slower approach and workshops to make changes more understandable and to allow the planning board to provide recommendations. Councilor Vignali apologized for confusion caused by the process and said she would work to provide clearer summaries and definitions as the council reopens discussions.

What the council adopted on Wednesday was procedural: close the public hearing, withdraw the current redlined proposals and start an engagement process of workshops and targeted reviews. The council recorded the following formal actions at the meeting: reopening the hearing earlier in the evening (motion and vote recorded 5-0), a motion to close the hearing (passed 5-0), a motion to withdraw the proposed amendments (passed 5-0) and the adjournment (passed 5-0).

Council members and several planning-board members urged a staged, collaborative process if the council reintroduces zoning changes: draft clear replacement text, send items to the planning board one or two at a time, hold workshops to explain tradeoffs (bulk standards, duplexes, FAR, short-term rentals) and identify enforceable measures tied to local priorities and state requirements. The council did not set dates for workshops or adopt replacement language at the meeting.

The withdrawal ends the current amendment package but leaves the underlying policy questions — how to balance housing affordability, rental pressure from students and seasonal visitors, neighborhood character and coastal access — open for further public discussion.