Westerly council amends Napa Tree Point ordinance after debate over access, reopens hearing for public comment

The Westerly Town Council on Oct. 6 amended an ordinance intended to prohibit roadways, sidewalks and infrastructure on the sandy conservation area at Napa Tree Point, then reopened the public hearing after residents said the council had not heard all public comment and that the ordinance’s listed lot numbers did not match official plat and GIS maps.

The ordinance discussion began during a continued public hearing on the proposed amendment to chapter 21. Solicitor Connolly told the council the office had identified three paved lots to exclude from the prohibition so that existing paved parking and travel areas could continue to be used and maintained. Several residents and commission members urged the council to ensure the ordinance would not block necessary pedestrian access or prevent future maintenance of the seawall.

Ben Weber, who identified himself as chair of the Harbor Management Commission (speaking in a personal capacity), told the council the tide was already reaching the fence and that the town must guarantee pedestrian access “whether that be raising the seawall, a little bridge, something like that.” Morris Devine, a longtime Westerly resident, urged the council to “pass the ordinance as is” to protect town interests; other speakers, including Jim Tarbox, stressed keeping paved lots and maintenance access out of the prohibition.

Councilor LaPietra moved to remove Plat 185 lots 031-1, 031-2 and 031-3 from the ordinance and to restore previously redlined language in Section 1(b) providing limited exceptions for repairs and for sea-level-rise contingencies. The council voted in favor and the president announced that the ordinance had passed. After the vote, audience members and several councilors noted that the map in the packet did not match official plat boundaries and that some parcels affecting access from Bay Street to the fence appeared to remain in the ordinance.

At the public’s request, the council reopened the public hearing later in the meeting and heard additional comment. Ben Weber and other attendees pointed to discrepancies between the redline drawing and the town’s GIS and plat maps and asked the council to explicitly exclude additional plat numbers needed to preserve maintenance access from Bay Street past the fence. The solicitor advised that the council could reopen, take comment and then reconsider its earlier action at the same meeting; the council voted to reopen, listened to public comment, and then voted to continue the public hearing to the next meeting and to reconsider the earlier adoption. The council directed the solicitor and town staff to verify the plat boundaries and the list of excluded lots before the next meeting.

The council’s recorded action was therefore procedural: it amended and initially adopted an ordinance with specified lot exclusions, then voted to reopen and continue the hearing so staff and counsel could confirm plat references and to allow additional public input. No final, irreversible change to the ordinance remains in effect until the council reconsiders the prior vote and formally re-adopts language after verification.

The council was explicit that the ordinance’s intent is to memorialize that the town has no intent to build a road across the conserved sandy area, while preserving the ability to maintain pedestrian access and essential repairs where needed. The solicitor cautioned that the council should be precise in boundary language so future councils are not constrained in responding to sea-level rise or emergency repairs.

The council left the matter continued to the next meeting and asked staff and the solicitor to return with verified plat references and a redlined version of the ordinance for final action.