Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues heated debate over new burning ordinance; public largely supportive of regulated fire pits
Summary
After extended testimony and council debate about setbacks, definitions, smoke and enforcement, the council continued the second reading of the burning ordinance to Jan. 12, 2026, asking staff to simplify language into three buckets (cooking/permitted/recreational) and to clarify preexisting nonconforming situations.
The East Greenwich Town Council recessed deliberations on a proposed rewrite of Chapter 47 (Burning) after more than an hour of technical staff presentation, council questions and public comment.
Town staff and the fire department walked the council through a detailed draft that distinguishes authorized fuels, recreational burning rules (including a common 3-by-3-foot guidance for small recreational fires), and a much narrower definition for open burning that would require permits and inspections. Fire staff cited NFPA guidance and said municipalities commonly use 15–25 foot setbacks; council members debated whether a 25‑foot setback is appropriate in denser Hill & Harbor neighborhoods.
Chief Brown and fire‑marshal staff explained how other coastal Rhode Island towns set setbacks and require ember screens on devices used closer to structures. "That’s the standard," the chief said, describing a range of 15 to 30 feet in nearby towns and the use of screen tops to reduce ember escape. Councilors and the solicitor raised definitional issues — whether a barbecue/grill should be defined only as equipment designed exclusively to cook food and whether outdoor fireplaces should be treated as cooking devices or recreational heating features.
Public commenters generally urged the council to legalize and clearly regulate common backyard devices. Mary Lou Wernig, who said she has used fire pits and soul stoves for years, told the council those features are important for neighborhood socializing and had not caused local problems. Other residents urged safety and smoke protections: commenters suggested adding combustible fences to the definition of “structure,” clarifying hours of operation, and publishing red‑flag/no‑burn days.
After staff asked whether the council preferred a stringent, highly prescriptive code or a streamlined approach, the council directed staff to refine draft language and to present a simplified summary to accompany a more detailed backup. The council voted to continue the ordinance’s second reading to Jan. 12, 2026, so staff can return with edits and additional public hearings.
