Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glocester council denies comprehensive plan amendment and associated rezoning for Putnam Pike parcels
Summary
After months of review and a planning board recommendation against the change, the Glocester Town Council voted 4–0 (with one recusal) Oct. 3 to deny a developer’s request to amend the town’s comprehensive community plan and rezone two Putnam Pike parcels from agricultural/residential to highway commercial, citing concerns about spot zoning, neighborhood impacts and wetlands.
The Glocester Town Council on Oct. 3 voted to deny a proposed amendment to the town’s comprehensive community plan and a companion rezoning request by DBH West Gloucester LLC to change Plat 4, Lots 50 and 221 from agricultural/residential to highway commercial.
The planning board had recommended against the amendment at its Oct. 1 meeting, concluding the proposed change would be inconsistent with several comprehensive plan goals and policies intended to preserve Glocester’s rural character. The planning board’s advisory opinion, read into the council record, documented a 6–0 vote against the amendment and urged the council to include conditions if any zone change were considered.
Residents and abutters spoke at length during the continued public hearing. Sam O'Dalla, who said his property sits next to the parcels, urged the council to protect the neighborhood, saying the proposal would be "a clear infringement on our reasonable expectation for peace and quiet in this neighborhood." Roland LaValley, a recent arrival to the area, said converting the land to commercial uses "scared the living hell out of here," adding he favored following the planning board’s recommendation. Janice Lowell, who said she recently built next door, asked the council to contact local representatives to clarify why the owner was told certain uses might be disallowed and noted the property is currently listed for sale.
Several council members said they respected the planning board’s work and voiced concern about setting a precedent for spot zoning that could erode the town’s rural nature and affect abutters who expected the land to remain residential/agricultural. Mike Pealucci described wetlands on the lot and said he would be wary of approving a zone change without a specific site plan.
A councilor moved to deny the comprehensive plan amendment and later moved to deny the rezoning consistent with the planning board’s findings. The motions were seconded and passed by recorded voice (reported as 4–0 with one recusal). The council closed the hearing after the vote.
The council’s denial leaves the parcel designations on the future land use map and zoning map unchanged; any future request to alter the designation would require renewed action consistent with state law and the town’s comprehensive plan.
