The Glocester Town Council on April 3 adopted a resolution urging the Rhode Island General Assembly to oppose several proposed housing bills that council members said would reduce local zoning oversight.

The resolution names specific House proposals and states the council’s position that the measures would “negatively impact Glocester” by allowing increased density, limiting local review and exempting some state projects from local zoning rules. The council moved, seconded and approved the resolution by voice vote; the transcript does not record a roll-call tally.

Why it matters: Council members said the bills would affect towns without municipal sewer and water and could alter the town’s long-standing land-use rules. Council President William A. Worley Jr. described the measures as a statewide trend he views as “an overreach” and said they do not reflect “sound planning principles.” He spoke at length during the council discussion, calling the proposals “just mad right now” and asserting they would be especially harmful to rural communities that lack infrastructure.

The resolution cites multiple pending House measures by number and broad effect. It identifies the following proposals by the bill numbers read into the record: H5794 (zoning and subdivision amendments), H5801 (low- and moderate-income housing amendments), H5802 (use of state-owned vacant properties for housing), H5800 (village mixed-use zoning), H5798 (attached single-family homes), H5799 (infill and oversized-lot subdivisions) and H5797 (co-living housing options). The text as read to the council describes provisions the town says would: allow unlimited development on existing streets without planning board approval; remove the zoning board of appeals from some hearings; permit higher density for adaptive reuse projects if 10% of units are low- or moderate-income; exempt state-owned parcels from local zoning if hearings are held in Providence; and change standards for infill and co-living projects.

Councilor Stephanie L. Khaleesi added that one bill had been introduced by a state representative but said she did not expect it to pass; she described that filing as largely symbolic. The resolution directs the town clerk to forward the council’s opposition to the town’s state legislators and to other municipalities for support.

Action taken: The council passed the resolution (voice vote). The motion was seconded and the presiding officer declared the motion carried; no roll-call vote or individual yes/no votes were recorded in the minutes or transcript.

Background: The resolution frames the issue as part of broader state legislative activity affecting municipal zoning. It does not adopt any new local ordinance or regulatory change; rather, it records the council’s formal opposition and asks the clerk to transmit the resolution to state legislators and peer towns.