Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises damage and notification concerns after nearby blasting; council hears complaint
Summary
A Glocester resident told the council that blasting near his property is closer than the contractor’s letter states, reported property impacts and said he had not received notification; town staff said the resident will be kept updated and noted Rhode Island counsel involvement.
A Glocester resident told the Town Council on Aug. 21 that blasting near his property appears to be much closer than the blasting contractor’s written response claimed and that he has not received consistent advance notice of blasting activity.
The resident displayed a dated plan and used the map’s scale to estimate that his house is roughly 1,440 feet from the blasting area, countering a company letter that said the distance was about 2,000 feet. "When you read that... it was laughable," the resident said, adding that he had not received direct notification of blasting and that vibrations during a January blast nearly caused a safety incident in a nearby automotive shop.
The resident described structural concerns at his 18th‑century stone‑foundation house and said he planned to obtain a geologist’s report. He told the council he would keep them informed as he pursues documentation.
Town staff acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint and the contractor’s response noting the 2,000‑foot measurement; staff and councilors discussed map measurements and whether the company had measured to the resident’s structure. One councilor noted that the resident was “definitely under 2,000 feet” by an aerial measure. The council did not take formal action during the meeting but directed staff to stay in touch with the resident and to update the council as documentation arrives.
Because the matter involves potential property damage and technical measurements (vibration, distance), the resident said he would secure a geologist’s evaluation and counsel. The resident also referenced previous correspondence and advised the council he would notify them when he had additional materials.
No vote was taken; the council recorded the complaint for further follow up.
Context: the exchange included detailed measurements from a paper map dated Feb. 2008 (map scale 1 inch = 120 feet), the resident’s personal measurements (12 inches on the map equating to about 1,440 feet), and the contractor’s stated 1,290–2,000‑foot measurements in correspondence. Councilors and staff discussed measurement methodology and notification procedures. The resident requested that the town monitor the situation and acknowledged seeking legal counsel and technical verification.
