Residents urge council to reject West Main overlay as developer seeks hotel on town land

The Town of Middletown heard hours of public comment at a continuation of hearings over proposed changes to the town’s comprehensive plan, the official zoning map and a new West Main/Codington overlay district that would allow a 144‑room hotel on a 3.24‑acre parcel formerly occupied by the Navy Lodge.

Town solicitor Mr. Rean told the council the revised development agreement narrows the current phase to a 3.24‑acre corner parcel and preserves the 3.8‑acre Potsy Field recreation complex in its present location. He said the developer’s plan removes banks and drive‑throughs from the proposed overlay, increases affordable‑housing minimums on the northern parcels from 12% to 20%, and projects the hotel phase would generate roughly $785,000 a year in combined revenue from ground rent, room and meal taxes and property‑related taxes; ground rent will escalate 2.5% every five years.

Gerard Galvin, a representative of the development team, described those changes as the result of months of negotiation and public input and said the overlay as drafted leaves the town discretion over how to plan the remaining northern parcels. “We took the signal from September,” he said, describing removal of banks and drive‑throughs and the firm’s intent to preserve the recreational complex.

But the hearing was dominated by residents opposed to the plan. Speakers cited a June 2021 request for information (RFI) and multiple subsequent studies and argued the current proposal no longer matches the community vision for a “town center” with pedestrian spaces, a library and community gathering places. “One hotel is not going to solve the town’s financial woes,” said Karen Bastri, who pointed to planning‑board memoranda expressing concern that a hotel should not be the primary structure. More than 2,000 petition signatures opposing the hotel were cited by multiple speakers.

Several residents repeatedly urged the council to restart competitive procurement rather than rely on the RFI responses and a negotiated development agreement. Joanne Thornton, a former federal contracting officer, said: “Contracts are never awarded based solely on a request for information.” The solicitor and council members said the council reviewed RFI responses and decided to proceed with one respondent, and that the revised agreement is subject to multiple contingencies and required permitting.

Potsy Field was a frequent focus. Several speakers said the federal deed restricting the site for recreation raised legal barriers to relocation, and urged the town to ensure the field’s protection is permanent. Bill Wert said he would submit a March 31, 2025 letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service addressing the covenants. The solicitor said the town had engaged the National Park Service and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and that any relocation of recreational‑use covenants would require federal approval; he said the current plan keeps Potsy Field in place.

Residents also questioned whether the projected revenue justifies changing town‑owned land. “For $785,000 a year, what is that going to do for our budget in realistic terms?” asked Terresa Spangler, citing potential extra costs for police, fire, water and roads. Others cited traffic and environmental concerns, the density of hotels already on West Main Road and the potential loss of trees and open space.

Several speakers raised process and ethics concerns, including whether planning‑board conditions attached to earlier approvals had been satisfied and whether conflicts of interest or nonpublic negotiations had affected outcomes. The council and solicitor responded that planning‑board recommendations and conditions were considered and that many items had been revised in response to prior public hearings.

No final votes were taken. The council kept the hearings open and said it will schedule the continued hearing and potential vote at a future meeting; council staff said the record remains open for additional public submissions and that required state and local permitting would be needed before any lease, construction or final approval.

What’s next: the council will set another public hearing date to consider adoption of the comprehensive plan changes and overlay zoning and any related motions. The development agreement itself includes contingencies tying any final lease or construction rights to passage of rezoning and to required approvals from planning, state agencies and, where applicable, federal agencies that oversee deed restrictions on former federal lands.