Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health And Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues mobile‑food ordinance hearing after debate on permits, liability and private‑event carve‑outs
Summary
After extensive Q&A about liability, permit limits, daily vs. annual permits, and private‑event exceptions, the council continued the mobile food establishments and hawkers/peddlers code amendment hearing to Feb. 5 and asked staff to produce a clean draft reflecting council direction.
The Glocester Town Council on Jan. 15 resumed a public hearing on a proposed revision of local code governing mobile food establishments (MFEs), hawkers and peddlers. The hearing began with staff answering an 18‑question list submitted at the previous session and continued with extended public comment and council debate.
Town staff explained multiple technical points about the draft: the ordinance is not a zoning change and therefore does not regulate catering, but an MFE operating on private property may still be subject to zoning if the underlying land use is restricted; the town’s proposed ordinance includes a hold‑harmless clause and penalties tied to state law; and municipal MFE permits are designed to expire on the same day as related state permits for administrative alignment.
“Because if we issue a new license ... we’re required to make sure that the safety concerns, health safety, and welfare of the citizens are protected,” staff said while describing liability and penalty provisions.
The most contested points were operational: whether to set a numeric cap on annual municipal permits (the existing code lists five), how many daily or event permits the clerk should be allowed to issue without full council review, whether the town can or should prefer town residents for licensing, and how to treat private events where a food truck serves only invited guests. Vendors and residents testified: vendor Charlie Wilson urged the council not to cap annual permits if there are legitimate applicants, and others asked the council to allow limited daily permits for events.
The council settled on a procedural approach: rather than lock numeric limits into the ordinance, the council will set the number of annual and daily permits by resolution so the limit can be adjusted administratively. Councilors also requested a clean posted draft that incorporates the council’s choices (for example: whether to allow tents/chairs or to treat private events differently) before reconvening the hearing.
Action: the council voted to continue the public hearing on the MFE/hawkers/peddlers ordinance to Feb. 5 and asked staff to circulate a revised draft in advance of that meeting.
What the draft says now: municipal fee structure presented in the hearing follows state regulations (example figures cited in the discussion included a $75 maximum annual municipal fee and lower per‑day or per‑event fees); in the draft the council retains discretion to set permit counts and event approvals by resolution.
Next steps: staff will prepare a clean ordinance draft reflecting council direction for publication and public comment before the Feb. 5 hearing.
