Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glocester council keeps public hearing open on proposal to allow ‘earth processing’ in B‑2 zone
Summary
The Glocester Town Council on Nov. 6 continued a public hearing on a proposed zoning text amendment that would add “earth processing” to the permitted uses in the B‑2 highway commercial zone after the planning board recommended against the change by a 7‑0 vote.
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Glocester Town Council on Nov. 6 continued a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the town’s zoning ordinance that would add “earth processing” (screening, crushing and similar work involving sand, gravel and loam) as an allowed use in the B‑2 highway commercial zone.
The proposal—linked in the council memo to a property listed at 640 Putnam Pike (AP 17, Lot 107) and described in the file as an application involving the Colucci Organization—was the subject of an advisory opinion from the planning board. At its Oct. 21, 2025 meeting, the planning board moved, on a motion by planning board member Steve Clifford and seconded by John Bart, not to recommend the council enact the revisions, citing inconsistency with the town’s comprehensive plan and the general purposes of zoning under RIGL Title 45; that motion passed 7‑0.
The council hearing resumed on Nov. 6. Jim Colucci and Tom Colucci, identified themselves as partners of the Colucci Organization and said the operation on the site consists of occasional screening and light crushing of material they excavate or handle on construction jobs. “We’re not a full‑blown aggregate operation,” Jim Colucci said, noting the work is sporadic, done with portable crushers and screens, and primarily supports their own site‑work contracts. The applicants said a prior planning board meeting had approved storage of material on the site and that earlier town staff had given them informal guidance that such activity was permissible; they argued the council should consider their circumstances positively.
Neighbors and other residents raised objections including dust on Route 44, truck traffic, the audible noise of crushing and hammering, and the potential for contaminated fill to be brought in. “Can you imagine the noise and the echoing of crushing rocks across from Bowdish Lake?” a resident said, urging the council to follow the planning board’s recommendation to deny a townwide allowance.
Town Solicitor David explained that, under current Glocester zoning, earth processing is not allowed anywhere in town and cannot be authorized administratively by staff or the planning board. To permit processing broadly in the B‑2 zone the council would need to change the zoning ordinance. David also outlined a two‑step approach the council could pursue: (1) amend the zoning table to allow processing in specified locations or zones, and (2) adopt a licensing regime tied to those zoning allowances that could impose conditions — limits on hours, annual renewal, restrictions to on‑site material only, limits on trucks, and testing or documentation requirements. He warned that adopting an ordinance without a concurrent licensing framework could create a de facto blanket allowance for all B‑2 parcels.
Council members said they were split between those who were reluctant to change town‑wide zoning and those who wanted to craft a narrowly drawn license and permitting program. Multiple councilors and residents urged more study, including model licensing from other municipalities and clear standards for contamination, dust mitigation (rutting, watering of entrance), and limits on incoming material.
The council voted to continue the public hearing to a date certain to allow staff and the solicitor’s office to draft a licensing document and to give neighbors additional opportunity to comment. The public hearing was continued to a date certain recorded in the minutes as 01/08/1926. The council asked staff to prepare a draft license ordinance for review before a future vote.

