Planning board recommends denial of major zoning package; council opens contested public hearing on 14 amendments

The Narragansett Town Council on May 5 opened a public hearing on 14 proposed zoning amendments — a package the council said was intended to align local code with recent state law changes and streamline review processes.

The planning department and planning board reviewed the package and returned a formal recommendation opposing most of the proposed changes. At the council meeting the planning board’s director, Jill Sabo, and planning board chair Mark Brady explained the board’s reasons, and the town solicitor outlined legal constraints that the council faces in scheduling public review.

Jill Sabo, introduced at the hearing as the town’s planning director, summarized that the planning board held multiple special meetings and returned a report finding the proposed package was largely inconsistent with the town’s comprehensive plan and with the stated purposes of the zoning ordinance.

"The board voted unanimously not to support changes in Breakwater Village, the household definition and unrelated persons additions, and it did not support removal of the environmental overlays," Sabo told the council. She said the board also objected to removing special‑use review for expanded alcohol service and to some bulk‑regulation deletions.

Planning board chair Mark Brady told the council the body felt constrained by legal direction during review and that the written report is more limited than the board would typically provide because of legal counsel’s instructions during the process. "We were told very explicitly that we could not make recommendations and we could not vote," Brady said, describing difficulty in preparing a fuller report under the schedule the council imposed.

Among the most contested items in the package: proposals to remove the local coastal and freshwater wetland overlays (the package's drafters said the change is intended to conform to a state statute that limits local buffer and setback rules), and a proposal to eliminate a special‑use review step for some restaurant alcohol licenses so licensing would come directly to the town council. Town attorneys and planning staff debated whether the edits would reduce local transparency or simply remove duplicative local rules in areas now regulated by state agencies.

Solicitor James Callahan noted the state liquor licensing statute vests issuance authority in town councils and explained that the proposed text would remove an advisory step (planning and zoning review) that current practice uses to allow public comment before the council acts on an alcohol license application.

The planning board recommended denial of the text changes and also asked that a comprehensive plan amendment be resubmitted to the board separately to ensure statutory compliance. After extended public comment tonight — with about a hundred residents remaining late into the meeting — the council voted to continue the public hearing and set a continuation for May 14 at 6 p.m. for further consideration and workshops.