East Greenwich ' The Town Council on Nov. 10 continued a contentious second reading of a proposed rewrite to Chapter 47 of the town code that would clarify what kinds of backyard fires are permitted, set new setbacks and permitting rules for open burning, and create enforcement options for recurring or hazardous incidents.

Town Manager Andrew Nada summarized the staff proposal, saying the rewrite breaks burning into categories'authorized (including certain recreational fires), unauthorized fuels, and open burning requiring permits'and adds a more detailed definition section to reduce ambiguity. "We've clarified a number of areas," Nada said, adding the change to the town's .gov domain for official communications and noting the draft was shaped by public input and fire-department guidance.

The fire department and draft authors leaned on NFPA guidelines when recommending setbacks. "NFPA's standard is 25 feet," the fire chief told the council, noting that neighboring towns adopt setbacks ranging from about 15 to 30 feet but that provisions such as screened tops and approved containers can mitigate risk closer to structures.

Supporters at the public hearing urged the council to permit commonly used fire pits, "solo stoves," and gas grills in residential yards so long as safety standards are met. Mary Lou Wernig, who said she has lived on the Hill for 25 years, told the council the devices "got us all through COVID" and that neighbors share them responsibly.

Opponents and some councilors asked the town to be careful not to create an unreadable or impractical ordinance. Several members urged staff to simplify the approach by sorting fires into three user-facing buckets: cooking fires (barbecue/grill), recreational fires for social use, and open burning that requires a permit for land-clearing or brush. Legal counsel and staff discussed options for grandfathering preexisting nonconforming units while preventing the ordinance from becoming an unpredictable enforcement trap.

Councilor Michael Donegan and other members discussed smoke and nuisance concerns and whether to adopt a measurable opacity standard enforced at the property line or to limit fuels instead. "We considered fuels as the primary control," Nada said, noting staff opted against technical opacity meters because of practicality and cost.

The council asked staff to revise the draft to make the rules more digestible for residents (a one-page summary with the full code attached was suggested), to clarify the treatment of preexisting structures, and to fine-tune setback and penalty language. The hearing was continued by motion to Jan. 12, 2026, to allow additional legal review and public meetings.

What happens next: Town staff and legal counsel will redraft sections requested by the council, incorporate public feedback where appropriate, and post revised language ahead of the continued public hearing scheduled for Jan. 12, 2026.