Town Council - Regular Meeting

Field Town Council meeting January 5th, 2026. Madam Clerk, can you start us with prayer and pledge, please? Thank you for bringing us together today in a spirit of generosity. May we honor one another and keep by keeping an open mind. May we voice our truth and listen with an open heart. May we discern your will to unite in a fruitful outcome. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. To the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thanks, CJ. Roll call. Mr. Bureagod here.

Mr. Christopharo here. Mrs. O'Hara here. Mr. Punchac here. Miss Alves here.

Open forum pursuant to 42-46-6D maximum three minutes per person. Did anyone want to sign up to speak in open forum? Anyone? Bold business. A discussion by council vote to other action and petition application for an amendment to the zodiacing ordinance pursuant to Rhode Island general laws 45-24-50 and 45-24-51 45-24-53 as follows one petition/lication for amendment to zoning ordinance filed by Poundhill Realy LLC 618 Greenville Roadfield Rhode Island 02896 and owner of parcel of land situated off old Oxford Road Poundill Road and Pineh Hill road in the town of Nusmail. More particularly described as town of Nus miss town of Nusmail tax assessors plat 7 lot 38 consisting of 89.44 acres subject property and two amendment in a zoning map amendment to the zoning ordinance of the town of Nuspail. The zoning ordinance proposed zoning amendment will create a new zoning district industrial special management district one overlay. The intent of the district is to allow mining, quaring, sand and gravel extraction, loom stripping, stone cutting operations, crushing, washing, and or processing of materials. The zoning map amendment proposes to amend the zoning designation of the parcel of land located at 14 Pine Hill Road in the town of Nosma, more specifically described as assessor's plot 7, lot 38, the property from rural agriculture RA and rural estate agriculture REA to industrial special management district 1 overlay. A continu continuation of public hearing. B discussion by council voted other action. And C discussion by council vote other action on discussions with the applicant regarding alternative solutions to the requested zone change in Pound Hill

Realy LLC versus Town November case number PC191-5374 and PC199-1811 including potential settlement agreement by negotiation or mediation. Details of such negotiations or mediation might be worked out by the town solicitor and approved by the town council. I make a motion to uh I'll make a motion to um open the public hearing. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Bureagod. Yes. Mrs. Aaro? Yes. Mr. Punch? Yes. Mr. Christopher Faro? Um I will recuse, but do I have to move? [laughter] I don't really feel like walking. She can stay there. Can I sit here? state.

Thank you. Okay, Miss. Yes. Okay. All right. Anyone like to speak um in the public hearing regarding this matter?

Good evening and happy new year to everybody. Uh Bill Landry for the applicant, Poundhill Realy. Um, at the last meeting of the council before uh the Christmas break when addressing the proposed text amendment, the council made uh a motion adopted a resolution to direct the town administrator uh the town solicitor to work with uh council for poundilly toward an agreement on an alternative alternative dispute resolution mechanism uh either mediation or negotiation. Uh we've done that. Um we worked with Mr. Igliozi, Mr. Robenheimimer. Uh we're attorneys that have not always been on the same side of everything. Uh but have worked together in a very professional way for decades and decades. All all of us uh here. And our goal was to adopt an agreement that everybody would be comfortable with as an above board um mediation agreement. keeping it simple, keeping away any posturing from the recital in the agreement and most importantly um working expeditiously toward a result that is assisted by a mediator who is above reproach. Uh we've narrowed the scope to a a retired Rhode Island Supreme Court justices. There are a couple of names

that have been exchanged. Uh and there's a discussion underway about that. Um, I am confident at this point that the the choices that have been made are blue chip justices with longstanding uh experience uh and mediation skills uh that would be important to a dispute like this. Um, one of the advantages of going with a retired judge is that the judges have to keep their distance, particularly Supreme Court judges, keep their distance from friends of theirs who are lawyers, lawyers that they used to practice with, lawyers that they had long-standing friendships with. the judges really have to try to avoid that and and and be in a in a higher place as it comes to any professional dealings. And that's particularly true of the Supreme Court judges because they don't really even come into contact uh with most other lawyers on a daily basis because they don't handle trials. They just handle handle appeals. Um so we have we have prepared um mutually a two-page agreement for mediation that is very very simple. There are some undisputed recitals about how we got here, who we each are, uh that there's been longstanding litigation. The litigation is identified. There was uh a uh recommendation by the court a direction to pursue administrative uh remedies measures short of uh a trial on the on the litigations.

Uh and the a zoning uh text amendment was proposed proceeded before the planning board proceeded before the council for a series of hearings. It recites that the applicants presented certain expert witnesses. It recites that the town had a neutral expert report made available to it as well. We didn't describe those reports or or posture in any way uh the content of those reports and we made reference to uh the council's direction to prepare an agreement uh for alternative dispute resolution for this matter. Again, a retired judge from the Rhode Island courts. Uh a a a tight time frame for this to happen. uh that the mediation has to not only begin but be concluded within 60 days of the ex of the um time of a uh uh mediation agreement by the parties uh take place at a neutral location. It won't be in town hall. It won't be in my office or any other law office unless everybody agrees to that neutral location and venue. the the costs of the mediation are split so that there's no sense that this was because somebody was paying for this somehow that they they have the upper upper hand in the mediation. Uh the town's representatives uh would for the town principally be Scott Gibbs uh and any other uh town employee that Mr. Gibbs uh deems appropriate as well as Tim Robenheimimer. Attorney Robenheimimer has represented uh the

town in in recent years in the litigation. Um the town could also have at at its choice someone from GZA its neutral expert participate in the mediation. And I think you know this, but uh for those who are here, I'll I'll clarify that when experts are involved in mediation, it's really not an argument that's being presented or or expert testimony that is directed toward a particular uh outcome. It's not what we did before the planning board and the council. Instead, the technical skills of of the experts for both sides uh are of great value to the mediator in devising appropriate outcomes. In in this case, uh there was great discussion about a number of conditions uh buffering, screening, uh testing, uh environmental controls and so forth. some of which are may be better than others, more efficient than others, more reliable than others. Uh, and the presence of those individuals is is really not for them to make presentations as such, but to be available to answer questions and assist the process in each other's presence toward uh what will hopefully be a mutually acceptable uh outcome. Uh so for the for the uh Pound Hill, the the three experts you're familiar with, they may not all choose to be there or agree to be there, but we'd like to have the ability for them uh to be there as resources for everybody. Um, and then if there's another

technical support issue that arises that hasn't been fully addressed or isn't in the direct wheelhouse of those experts, we can agree, the parties can agree and the mediator could request uh that that there be add an additional expert um input on some some issue of of relevance. Uh and finally, this has to be a confidential process. Um by the Rhode Island rules of evidence, nothing that is said in uh compromised negotiations can be used in court if this matter is not settled and ends up proceeding before a court. So that protects the parties, protects the process and makes it possible for people to be uh frank and candid and clear and not as uh posturing in the way the the procedure uh unfolds. So we heard you say that you'd like this to happen if it's going to happen quickly and not delay a resolution here. Uh it's goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. This is a non-binding um mediation that's been proposed. The mediator is not there to decide who wins. The mediator is there to try to help forge an agreement where under circumstances where it's not that easy for the parties to do that by their own on their own for all kinds of things. In some cases, it's because there's a toxic element uh involved in the dispute. I don't believe that would be the case here. In other cases, uh, practical realities of having

an entire board like a town council or a planning board involved in mediation, [clears throat] uh, the logistics of of of full-blown litigation and all that. Uh, you know, that that lends itself um to this whole process and it works only if there's a mutual agreement enforcable by the court. that what happens uh in the mediation stay in the mediation. Obviously, the council can have input at intervals along the way. This may not all happen on one day. If it does, it it it would would presumably happen through some type of interaction between the uh town's team and the applicants team and and other people that may be uh council people for for example. It's not, you know, beyond expectation that there could be some type of executive session of the council that takes place before this this process is concluded. Um, so that's that's the structure of what this is. I I hope that it it is it meets your expectations as to what you were hoping you would see. I'm happy to answer any questions and I know both Mr. Robenheimimer and Mr. Iglio are here for that purpose as well. [clears throat]

I think there should be maybe one more line on here indicating that the final results of the mediation will go before the town council for approval and then that approval will go before a judge to make a make it a court order and then it will be binding. I don't know what does that sound like

that that was implicit that the result but I do I do think that's a good idea uh that to to state that the you know the goal is that it would be toward a consent a consent uh judgment of of the of the parties that's the that would be the structure of the of the mediation David would weigh in. Yeah.

Um, so just couple of technical points. One, this proposal was presented to the council as a result of your request. It is not an agreement by anybody at this point. It's just a proposal to you. That's why it's on the docket because you asked us to put it on the docket. Prepare it so we have something to work with. I want to be clear on that. Um, the contents of the agreement um were worked out. Mr. Mr. Robenheim can talk with talk to you about his participation. I did review it. It's a what I consider a vanilla agreement, meaning it's not hedging one side or the other. Um the results of the mediation would absolutely have to come to the council for approval. That's if it's not implicit, we'll make it explicit. There was never an intention that this would be some sort of agreement that could be binding because the law does not allow uh the parties to agree to anything without council approval. That's that's court precedence. Just so you're aware on that because you're involving pending litigation as well as uh zoning relief. So that's number one. So the answer is yes. It has to go before the council. And then theoretically, if the council were to approve it, they would then be approving um if they approve something, they would potentially be approving some sort of mechanism to have that become binding, whether it's a court order or otherwise might be.

So why not put it down if it's you can do it? You could do that, but we the idea is mediation you don't want to be binding. It's and it's not okay. Just you don't want the mediation to be binding. The mediation is not binding. It's only but the results of the mediation come before the town council for final approval. Right. And if you're not satisfied, it's not approved. Correct. I'm satisfied with that. But I'll let Mr. Robenheimman weigh in on it. Mr. Borgard, you're 100% correct. It should be in here. Mr. Robin, can you go? That's it's really this was kind of a give and take for tonight to give you a chance to take a look at the agreement. Honestly, it was an oversight. It should be in there. Makes perfect sense. I can't bind the town. Mr. Gibbs can't bind the town relative to this particular process without your approval. So, it will be in the final version.

Okay. Thank you. Did you want to do you want talk about this at all? Unless you have questions, uh, Attorney Landry, you covered it really quite in detail. It's they don't want it to be too long or too complicated. It's a pretty straightforward process. It's a good process to go through to have a neutral person with that kind of background and skill level to take a look at it and see if they can bring us closer together ultimately to be resolved by the town council. Oh, just one last final point is that we did talk about either a Supreme Court judge or a superior court judge retired. We're just trying to figure out which judge it'll be at this point.

But I the people that have been discussed, I'm I have no issues with whether it's the Supreme Court judge or the Superior Court judge. So, just to move the process forward quickly.

Madam President, may I just weigh in on that? So there are two issues that council need to think about. Um if assuming there was some language assuming you wanted to approve this proposal and you wanted language in there about uh approval by the council does the council want to um review the don't forget the ret the retired justice that's would be recommended mutually recommended. If they can't a can't agree then it won't be but if they can you want to approve that person we can come back and then obviously there'll be the financial aspect of that because we don't know we have an idea but we didn't get out we didn't start getting judges billable rates I don't think Mr. womanheimer said, you know, he has experience with some of these retired jud just justices, but he doesn't have their billable rate. But so my thought is if and the other thing is in the agreement, it's 60 days from the time the mediator accepts the agreement, not from the time you approve it. So that um just I know we mentioned that

that's correct. It's just we don't know what their what their calendars look like at this point. So we have to uh obviously the lawyers have to be available, the judge has to be available. I mean we can come back if that's your decision. I know that you want to move this process forward quickly. We could put a not to exceed hourly rate uh for any one particular judge that we decide on or we could come back. It's really your choice. I personally don't feel the need to approve of a judge that both parties agree on. I do have an issue with the town having to pay 50/50 for this mediation because the town [laughter] the town didn't necessarily get us to this point. So, I would say if if the town's going to pay 50/50, I would like it to say the town is going to pay 50/50 with any proceeds that come from any fines that may be imposed.

No, there's mediation. Everything's on the table now, right? So, there is, but I don't know if there's any um pending violations that uh that have generating any fines. Well, if if I just want I just want to be clear on that. I'm not aware of that. There may be, but I'm not aware of that. But the potential is there, right? Yes. The potential is there.

I mean, that's perfectly reasonable. It's just when we go through this process to have the parties share the cost just keeps the transparency that we're both vested in the process and that no one person's paying the fee with the expectation that okay, we're paying the fee so we're going to get the result that we want. It's just that you know it's typically the way we do it. That's all.

Yeah, I wouldn't I wouldn't say no over that. But my point is more to say everything is on the table here. So, if there is the potential for fines, I think that, you know, the town should take their 50% portion out of any fines that could be imposed. It's not saying that we're not going to pay our 50%, but um to me, I just wanted to be known that I think you you're opening up everything here with this mediation as far as I'm concerned.

Anyone else have any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else want to get up during this public hearing? [clears throat] Anyone else? One more time. Anyone else? table continue the public hearing.

We have to continue. I would Well, I thought the first item you could take item C and decide whether you want to first of all, do you want to um consider a motion on this item? And if you do, you could take it. And the question then is do you are you satisfied with just adding the language that councilman Bureagod said or do you want to see a new agreement before you vote on it? Because I'm hearing from councilman Punchac. He not worried about coming back for to with the judge selection if that were to happen. If both parties are are happy with them. I mean

it would just be the fee and the fee would be presented to you like every other contract. it'll come on as presented to you as a contract uh that you you'd approve for fees. So, could we um unless you want to do a not to exceed item like Mr. Robenheim said. Yeah. But do we even have any idea what kind of rate we'd be looking at depending who you choose? Right. So I please

I can tell you that uh a retired judge that I recently as of like Friday, we agreed on him uh serving as a mediator, he charges $400 an hour. My experience has been the range is is between $400 to $600 an hour for the retired judges. So, it's going to be somewhere in that range, 4 to 600. Okay. All right. Thank you. Do you want to make a motion?

I I I before I make a motion, I just I'm having a hard time with with this whole thing now because So, personally, [snorts] I think mediation or some sort of negotiation solves this problem. Having the applicant and their attorneys come back here and talk to us more about anything, more experts, more dog and pony shows doesn't change anything for me on the ordinance, the text amendment that they proposed. Nothing ch it's not going to change. So why do we even have it exist anymore? If we're going to go to mediation, I want to take the text amendment off the table.

My only comment to that is I think the council should try to keep all options on the table because you don't know what will happen with mediation. That's my only point. I I my concern is that you're going to take and keep in mind you're assuming that you had to vote up or down as presented. And we now we're getting into the actual ordinance. You you had every right to modify this any way you wanted to if you were going to do it with any conditions you wanted. It did not up or down. So if we keep this on the table, mediation doesn't go as planned. We come they come back with a mediation plan. We deny it. We're back to this back to that with changes

with any changes you want. And if that and if if your answer is negative to that, then it's back to at least you have all three options. That's my only concern about doing that because you spent all this time and money and invested the the the public's time and money in coming to meetings on a public hearing. You I don't think you want to if things go bad on the mediation and you have to go back to a public have to start all over again. I think you want to keep that option open until you're sure you're not going to use any version of it. I mean, we have had no discussion from the council yet as we haven't had an opportunity.

I appreciate that, Councilman. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just I my only advice would be I would keep all options at the table. I don't think it harms the council to continue that item longer than 60 days to a date certain. You can always pull it off the agenda and then it's back to being readvertised and renoticed or you can always vote in a negative way in the future or a positive way with multiple changes like all those options are available to you and I I'm you know I think all the parties feel hopeful nobody I believe the council feels hopeful that um participating in the outcome is better than not right and that's my and I otherwise you wouldn't even have considered this option of disagreement. But my concern is if it doesn't work.

Uh that I I know you feel strongly about that, but my only advice is do not eliminate all your options. That's that's my only concern. And I think you'd be hardressed to make a decision tonight. You're trying to make a very final decision in a very abrupt fashion. I think it takes more thoughtful analysis over the material and council discussions than if you were going to consider that. I'd want you to do that in another meeting whether it's if you don't want to wait 60 days, but I just think it makes more sense to to do that. But that's my advice. But I I you know, I'm here to serve the council.

If I could add it to that. Um, I just I I understand where you're coming from, David, but uh I think that by doing that, we would be surrendering some leverage that we have. The leverage being that if we don't like the way things are going, we'll come back here and we'll call the vote in 60 days. And that's that's gives us a little a little advantage, a little leverage, and you don't want to surrender leverage before the uh before the meeting.

I get that. But I also look at it from the flip side whereas and you know obviously this could go either way but this is a now becomes a backup plan. So if you take the backup plan away you're going into mediation knowing okay I want to you know be open-minded with this mediation because at the end I don't want to know. I already got to know on one option. I don't want two nos. That's the way I'm kind of looking at it. But I don't think it takes a genius to see that. I don't mean someone from the outside looking in. I don't think it takes a genius to see which way this vote would go. And I don't think they want to see that happen. So that's why we have leverage.

You're saying we have leverage if we keep everything. Is that what you're saying? I'm saying we have leverage if we don't call the vote and we use that and if if for some reason the vote these the uh the mediation is not going the way we like it if we feel they're acting in bad faith we feel that they're stalling whatever it is and fine we'll come back and we'll call the vote I don't I disagree on the leverage aspect I agree on the options aspect because I would rather have the option available in case if weote don't know on this. Who knows where it's going to go? We still haven't even voted on mediation. So, with that being said, I will make a motion to continue the public hearing until a date certain of

I'm going to just ask you to take items out of order. Okay. Um I I I want I think the council needs to decide if they have are they going to move to approve the mediation agreement with that changes that would be the reason why you'd be continuing the public hearing to a date certain and I would make it more than 60 days because the agreement says it's this um mediation begins 60 days after the mediator is selected. So I'd pick 75 days. I mean, and I I know you don't want to go too far, but give them a chance to get a mediator and so probably like end April, early May, I assume, right?

I mean, if you wanted to go 90, if you felt comfortable with [laughter] that, that's the cleanest way that we don't have to worry about advertising and renotice that I mean, I'm just concerned about that. I'm concerned about having to do all the work that the clerk's done, everybody's done to get this before you. It's a lot of work, as you know. So, make sure they have time to get this mediation done because if they ask I mean you can I guess they could always ask for a continuence and then we're back to that again. I would like to avoid that if I could. Um they seem to be pretty confident that they can do it in 60 days. Um Mr. Oenheim has participated in these before. He's an expert in it. Mr. M Mr. um Landry is as well.

So first meeting in April would be 90 days. That's what I would ask. I I I so I would say if you're satisfied with the agreement subject to the comments made by Mr. Burag, you move the agreement as amended, you could clarify your comments. Maybe maybe you should move to amend and add your language first and then make a motion. One motion to make it amend it amend it officially and then a second motion to pass it as amended. And now we know the mediation agreement is approved by the council. And now you can move to continue the other two items to uh the first week in April. Does that make sense? Yeah. Do you have your wording, Councilman? Uh I didn't I wasn't aware of that. Uh

I know you had said it so I can wing it. Is it that mediation? We present it to the council for approval. Correct. Yes. And and then uh at that point it will be uh if approved by the council be submitted to the court be submitted to to the court for for entry of judgment. Correct. For um consent judgment that was consent. Correct. Yeah.

Okay. So the wording would be your motion would be you move to amend the agreement to require that any results of im mediation be submitted to the council for approval and if the council approves it submitted to the court for approval as a consent judgment. Can you move those words? That's fine. That that works. Is that accurate, Mr. Doenheim? Are you satisfied with that, Mr. Landry? Okay. So that's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Bureagod. Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchack? Yes. Miss Alves? Yes.

In front of you as amended. So, I would I would like to make a motion then to approve the agreement as that was presented to us as amended. The agreement for mediation. Second. We have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Roll call. Mr. Bureagod. Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. Punchac. Yes, Miss House. Yes. And now, Madam Madame President, that would bring that you would move to continue items, what is it? 4 A12AB to a date certain being April 6 six of 2026.

Okay. I will make a motion to continue the public hearing on items 4 A1 4 A in 4 A2 until a date certain of April 6, 2026. That's a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Any further discussion? Roa. Mr. Bureagod. Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. Punchac. Yes. Miss

Yes. All right. Discussion by count vote or other action on consideration of evidence regarding possible revocation of junkyard license for HT Auto LLC DBA Leo's Auto located at 955 INL Road. One, continuation of public hearing and two, discussion by council vote. Other action. I'll make a motion to open the public hearing for

HD Auto LLC. That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Burgod. Yes. Mr. Christopharo. Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchack? Yes. Miss Al? Yes. Anyone like to speak regarding this item? Did you?

Good evening, members of the council. Christopher Xan Garry with offices at 935 Jefferson Boulevard, Warwick, Rhode Island. And I'm here for the license holder, HT Auto. As you're going to recall, we were here on December 1st uh for this matter. We were here on December or in the other building on December 15th. This is our third meeting. Um there were many items discussed. I know we have the fire marshall. We have Mr. Labar here, Captain Lebar. We have Mr. Cody. We have lots of updated information for you based on the requests made. Many of them by uh Councilwoman D. Christopharro. Um and a couple of those items uh that were brought up well actually before we start that um there was a legal memorandum that I had given to the clerk and hopefully you've been given a copy of that but if not I have a copy for you if you don't have it.

Could I have a copy now? Absolutely. Is that everybody?

Yes, please. Thank you. I'm also going to give a copy to the clerk so that this can be made part of the official Now, before we get into the legal arguments, I'd like to start with the kind of the factual arguments. Um, Councilwoman D. Christopharro had uh had asked for numerous items and I'd like to address those. Um one of them was the issue of whether or not there were any EPA violations. So what I did was I actually went on the EPA website and I did a search. Uh only a and it's pretty pretty easy to use. Uh only a couple of things come up. One of them was uh from August 11th of 2023. there were some violations and those violations all returned into compliance. The latest one on December 2nd of 2003. So, I'll give you that uh so you can see it for yourself. And also, there was a site visit by the EPA on October 23rd of this year. No violations were identified uh by the EPA. So, that was one of the items uh that was requested.

body.

I'll also give a copy of the EPA uh report to the clerk to meet to be made part of the record. So, what you'll notice, you'll notice it's for 955 Iron Mine Hill Road, North Smithfield. And if you turn to page two at the bottom half of the page, enforcement and compliance, you'll see the compliance monitoring date. You'll notice 102325. To the right, you'll notice and it's darkened. It says no violation identified. I didn't put that shading in that that comes across on the website. You'll also notice underneath that there's a date of August 11th, 2023, violation determination date. And you'll notice to the right of that is the return to compliance date. Again, the last one returning to compliance on December 2nd of 2023. So, regarding the issue of compliance with EPA, there are no outstanding EPA violations. In fact, in October of this year, there was an inspection and [snorts] no violations were found. So, that's the EPA portion. The

Do you know what a focused compliance inspection entails? I do not.

Okay. Thank you. Now, uh, the other the other item I ran into, this wasn't asked for, but I thought I'd give it to you anyway, is uh, OSHA compliance. There was a complaint made, I don't know who made it. I'm assuming it's some resident of the town, regarding safety, uh, at the site. There was a case opened by OSHA, federal agency on December 19th of 2025. Uh that case was closed on December 23rd of 2005. I'll also give a copy to the clerk so that can be entered into record. You'll see that no violations issued and the case was closed based on the complaint. And just I just have one more clarifying question. The EPA inspections, were they the result of a complaint or were they just annual regular inspections?

It's unclear. It doesn't it doesn't it doesn't identify that and I don't know the answer. Okay. But I think the important takeaway is that no violations were found. Okay. Well, I just want to I' I'd like to define that a focused compliance inspection is a targeted on-site visit to a facility to check adherence on one specific part of an environmental regulation. So, that's the definition of an FCI. So, one specific part. So, they came, they did that, and they didn't find anything. Okay.

Um, in as attachments to the memo uh that I presented to you and the clerk this afternoon, um, I did a DEM search. So the state regulatory body uh there were certain items that were opened some from 2003 those were all closed. There is nothing there are no violations pending by the state DEM you'll see that as one of the exhibits I think it's G um I don't remember offhand. So from the state level for DEM there are no violations from the federal level EPA there are no violations from OSHA there are no violations. So those issues about safety [clears throat] and environmental uh were brought up, but there's nothing pending. There are no violations to those. So I would submit to you that any anyone that's making a claim that there's a problem, that's speculation, and that's fine. But the agencies tasked with the responsibilities of determining whether or not those actually exist have not made any determination that they do exist. In addition to the memorandum, I made an attachment which was site visit from the state's department of environmental management. They came for uh what was a report uh complaint for oil leaks. They did an actual physical assessment on site. You were presented with the letter showing that there were no uh visible uh violations, no oil leaks. That was dated December 11th of 2005. That's also part of an attachment to the memo. So the argument or at least the position that there are these environmental problems are not founded by the state or federal agencies tasked with those responsibilities. Now th those are the factual components. Um there was also a lot of discussion at the meetings about whether or not there was screening on the property. Mr. Dr. Hernandez Terrero has taken great has made great effort and I would say substantial and significant effort to in fact complete that screening. He does

have pictures which I'm going to show you today. But before we even get to that, what I'd like to do is I know Captain Labar is here. I spoke to him this afternoon by telephone. [clears throat] Um he can come up and uh if you wouldn't mind doing that, please, Captain. And I believe what he's going to tell you is as he told you at the December 15th meeting, [laughter] there are no violations on the site. At least that's what I told uh that's what I was told today. Um and if Captain Labar, if you could tell the council what you told me, please.

Good evening, Captain Lavar. I'm the fire marshal from Northville Fire Department. Um uh this afternoon, I'm sorry, this morning, uh correct me. Um uh this afternoon 1:00 we uh did an on-site inspection u myself and uh Mr. Cody. Um this was the second uh inspection that I've done surprise inspection since we met last um in December. Um and the he is still in compliance. I uh found no uh no issues um at this point in time um either either visit. So, at this point in time, I had no open violations and the two uh inspections that I did conduct uh have produced nothing as well. So, does the council have any questions for me or

So, has it looked like from your last visit to this visit, has there been more cars brought into the site? Not that I'm aware of. No, it actually looks like he is actually the cars are actually leaving. Uh some of the areas that were that had cars ready to be crushed are now open a little bit more. Um there's not another area that he's opened up with Rose uh that I had had requested in the past. Um so he is making forward progress. So if the fire had to get fire department had to get in there, they could get in there and do whatever they needed to do to remedy the situation. We can we can make access all the way to the back of the property to the property line. Thank you. And off to the side. Thank you.

Thank you. There you go. Thank you. Also there uh this afternoon on the site uh was the town's building and zoning inspector, Mr. Cody. Uh I did speak with him as well. If Mr. Cody could come forward, please.

Mr. Cody, we we spoke this afternoon by telephone. Um were you at the site this afternoon? Yes. Could you speak into the mic, Mr. Rudy? Yes. And did you uh did you notice uh whether or not uh the license holder HD Auto had removed the vehicles that were on neighboring property? Yes, it it appeared that all the abuing properties, the cars were moved onto his own property and a substantial amount of cars had been removed from the the lot. So is that there you had issued a notice of violation that had three items listed on. May I interject? Of course. I don't necessarily feel comfortable with you like direct examining u Mr. Cody. So I would can I ask him questions?

Okay. Um Leo based on the violations that we're aware of which is the expansion of the scope past the property as well as the adherence to ensuring that they have the appropriate fencing up. Have those violations been completely abated? Yes, he's [snorts] pretty much got all the fencing done. Not pretty much. Is Is it done? The only thing missing is the gate. [snorts] So, in the areas where there is no vegetation to inhibit line of sight into the property, there is a fence up in the critical points. Yes.

Not critical points. [snorts] No, the whole thing. According to our ordinances and lenture compliance, the yacht is surrounded by vegetation and and wooded lot. So, but I'm saying the areas where residents can see from their yard into the property, have those areas been completely screened off with suitable fencing? I I couldn't say for 100%. So then it's not abated, [snorts] but he he is making substantial progress. So I don't want to uh

I'm sorry I can't hear you. What? He's making substantial progress. So I don't want to hold up his license for that. So is he in compliance or no with the fencing? Yes or no? Yes, he is. Completely. It's all done. He where we asked him to put it, he's been He put it. I'm sorry. Where we asked him to put it, he put it. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. What? Where we asked him to put it, he put Where you asked him to put it.

But according to our ordinances, according to our law, Leo, it is required. We have We require fencing where there is line of sight from residents property into the junkyard. And it sounds like that's not completed 100%. So, personally, I don't feel comfortable renewing a license without that that being completed 100%. Nor the gate. The gate's not completed either. So, he he's still in municipal court, so we can still follow up with him with that. Okay. I think that we've received a lot of information over the last few days, and I've appreciated everybody's efforts in providing this information. Um, but it sounds like we still have some work to do.

Can I ask a question while you're up there, sir? Um when you initially came before the council to uh you asked us to not renew the license, what was the reason why you asked us to not renew the license? Because of all the questions that we had about environmentals and everything else that the stuff going on in the road, the shipping from the site that was nonjunkyard items. Okay. So are uh how do you feel now? Are you comfortable now? I feel he's satisfied most of that. But if you was if you were coming before the would you have even come before the council if the situation back then was as it is today? No. Okay. You would have approved the license back then? Yes. Okay.

So, Mr. Cody, what did he actually get cited for? Was the expansion? He had cars over spilling onto other people's lots. Uh he was loading and unloading in the road. He had vehicles showing up, forklifts in the road and everything. So, it was a big concern. So, he was operating outside of the yard. Okay. And what else? Is that it? What about the fencing? Right. And the screening. Well, the screening was caused by an issue he had when he lost access over a neighbor's property. So, he cut down a lot of trees and created a screening issue. So, those were the two items that he was cited for. Yes. That was it, right? Yes. Okay.

Anyone else? and one has been abated in in totality [clears throat] and the other is let's say 90%. Yes, correct. [snorts]

Yes, you done. I think my only other question is aside for and and I understand that we're focusing on the two citations. Those were the two or the violations rather. Those are the two violations that we essentially have to make a decision upon. Um, but do we know if he's in complete compliance with our lensure obligations? I believe he is because all the all the reports I've gotten back from all the different agencies, I haven't gotten anything negative. Okay, I'll table that one for later on tonight. Anything else for Mr. Cody? Anyone have any other questions, Mr. Cody? None of them.

No, we're all set. Thank you. [snorts] These are three photographs. I I only have three. They were taken this afternoon. They are of the the screening that's been erected on the property by my client. So, take a look at those. Can you give us reference to where these are?

I I can. So, Mr. Hernandez Terrero is here. Can you can you describe what those pictures accurately and fairly represent? Those pictures represent the residential area between 955 and 911. And the other side is between Ferra family and 955. I don't know this really the number for this house.

Is it for your east and west? And did you also erect a fence uh a month or two ago between I I believe um Roy the Roy the Roy property. Yes. Okay. That's not Are those on those pictures? Yes, that's on the picture too. The green screening. Yes. Wasn't it previously determined that that's not suitable fencing? No, that's the one is just because that's the wetland. Wet wetland. That's the wetland and and you can uh fence it on wetland. So we're So there's just the screening up.

Yeah, that's why we put the screening to wait until the next spring to plant our bodies. [snorts] Okay. So, those are those are the factual issues um that we that we addressed that were brought by most specifically Councilman um De Councilwoman D Christopharo. The legal issues are this uh you're sitting tonight as the legislative body to either grant uh or revoke the continuation of the license. So, there's there's two licenses that HD Auto has. One of them is from the state. They have a scrap and salvage yard license. The other one is for a town for the junkyard license. There was lots of discussion in the previous um previous hearings about whether or not there was retail or wholesale operations. Neither of those licenses make any reference to whether or not someone can retail or wholesale. It's not an issue for the license and the definition of the licenses. It's addressed in the memo. So, that's not really an issue before you. But what I would like to like to get into and argue is that in fact the town council, you license the use of the property. Also, you have an enforcement arm of the town, right? That's the building and zoning official. That's the municipal court. You also have remedies available to you, which are the superior court and also the district court. The district court, you can seek fines. The municipal court, you can seek fines. Superior court, you can seek conjunctive relief. In other words, you're not using the property. This is the argument for HT. Assuming they were not using the property uh the way it was licensed the way that you granted them the authority to do it. You could bring them in there, get injunctive relief, stop doing that, come into compliance, find them, or both. All right? That's the enforcement arm of the town. That's not your

position tonight. So using the license renewal as a form of enforcement is beyond the scope of what you're allowed to do. If he meets the conditions of the license, I think you're compelled to grant it. So, the conditions are listed in the charter. Your powers are in the charter, and the conditions are in section 2.04. It's outlined in the memo of what the conditions are because he's pre-existing legal non-conforming. All right. I believe it was Ms. Royy's father who started the yard back before there was a zoning ordinance in town. And because of that, he doesn't have to comply with certain distance from highways. He doesn't have to. And if you I just ask you because we're trying to get a record here, and I don't want you talking over it, please. Thank you. Um because he's pre-existing legal non-conforming, he doesn't have to comply with certain elements of that, like having it in a in a a single building. So, the one item that's a condition that is part of the approval is the screening. And as you can see and as you've heard from the building official, he said initially he felt he was in compliance. That was his first answer. That's your representative. That's the person charged with that responsibility. He did say that under under more direct questioning. He said, well, he thought it was 90% done. I would say this, that's a land use issue. If if that 10% doesn't get done, you have the municipal court, by the way, which is still pending. You've got the superior court. You've got the district court. So, you have a lot of remedies at your disposal. What I would ask you to do tonight is to renew the license. He's in compliance with He doesn't Well, I should say this. He's not in non-compliance with EPA, the DEM, OSHA. He has met the burdens that you've imposed. So, I understand the neighbors are upset. They don't like a scrapyard. It's not a pretty scrapyards aren't

pretty. Certainly, this one isn't either. But he's met his burden. He's done what Mr. Al, excuse me, Mr. Cody has asked. He's come here. He's been forthright. All right. The issues that he may have had with EPA, he's resolved. The issues he may have had with the Department of Business Regulation, he's entered into a consent agreement. He was candid with them. Uh, one of the one of the neighbors in the Butters presented you with a copy of that consent order. They haven't said he's violated it. There's nothing pending. So, as far as as far as we can tell and as far as you can tell as a body, he's complied with all those requirements. If he doesn't and the state says, "We're going to we're going to revoke your salvage yard license," he's got a big problem. HG Auto's got a big problem. That has not happened. So, we're asking you to renew the license. You have everything before you you need to grant that renewal. I submit you are compelled to renew it. It is a property right to take it away based on what's happened over the last three meetings and what you've been presented with I think is an ultravaries act. In other words, outside the scope of your powers. So I would ask you to uh renew the license. We're here for any questions. Um you've heard very candid testimony by the way by Mr. Cody. All right. I don't know Mr. Cody. I never met him before I got involved in this case a month and a half ago. All right. And I appreciate the question Mr. Bog Regard asked, councelor Bogard asked two months ago, would you have would you have approved the license? And he said yes. I think that that I think that's very telling. I think that carries a lot of weight. So I'd ask you to give some deference to your town employees who are on the front lines every day. Please renew the license of HT Auto. We're here to answer questions that you may have. Thank you.

Attorney, I think it's just an unfair assumption that you're making that the residents don't want a salvage yard. there. The salvage yard has been there forever. So for you to make that accusation, what's happening is you've heard all the testimony from the residents and it's the way the business is being run.

And I would I would submit that there have been significant changes to the business. There's also been significant changes to the property. There was there was a request to remove the vehicles. Vehicles were removed. There was a a request to meet the fire code. that request was met. There was a request to look into all type of things. Um EPA issues, insurance issues, all those have been done. I would submit satisfactorily. Um if if that's if that's what I said, I don't I don't mean to I'm not going to put any words in anybody's mouths uh for the abutters, but I understand they're upset. Clearly, that's true. That's that's very evident from the last two meetings. But again, I think what's important here is the role of the council, the scope of your authority, the testimony from Mr. Cody, I think is very telling. I'd ask you to put some weight on that. And also the fact that you have before you evidence of the environmental issues and the fact that they do not exist as far as the as far as the state and federal government are showing them at this time. That's not to say in the future there couldn't be an issue. I don't know. But as of today there is not. So, we'd ask you to renew the license.

I just want to say I I I got to agree with the president on this. I never got the sense throughout all these hearings that this was a not in my backyard situation. They just never came. There is a lot of situations like that that come in front of us. I didn't get the sense of that on this with this group. I think that the residents have very real concerns and if I were next door, I would have these same very similar concerns. So, I'm looking forward to hearing from the residents here this evening to better understand what's transpired over the last two weeks since we met. Thank you. Just if I could just have the chance to rebut after they're done. Sure. Thank you.

I just want to make a comment. I guess I missed the part in the license that allows them to receive, store, and send out household goods. Did I miss that? No. Abs. Absolutely not. Okay. So, that's not in the license, but he was doing that. There was testimony that he had done that in the past. Okay. I would I would submit this. Um the license holder at this point is not doing that. He does not intend to do it. If you would like a statement from him, an affidavit that he is going to cease those activities which have ceased, he will certainly do it. Well, they also had to cease because he has a limited scope of operation right now.

And and he's abided by that. As far as I as far as I know, there hasn't been any evidence. The building official hasn't informed me that he's violated that. He hasn't issued a violation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cody. Has all the um housewares been removed from the property like the washers and all the different appliances that was littered all around the property? Can you put your mic on? Can you He has ceased that activity. But are they removed? Are they gone?

Yeah. Yeah. There's the container stuff that was there for furniture and everything is mattresses. It's all been removed. Okay. [snorts and clears throat] The been there for how many years? I thought it was from the records I saw, it looks like from 1969. If there was never if there wasn't fencing before, why was there uh why was that an issue that you brought up that it required fencing now? Well, the screening issue was because of the move moving of the entrance. I when he moved the entrance, he cut down a lot of trees and it opened up the yard to where All right. Thank you. Okay. Anyone like to get up and speak during a public hearing? Go ahead.

Okay. Yeah. Just state your name and address, please. Yeah, I'll be polite. Don't worry. Timothy Colom, I am Mine Hill Road. Um, the letter that he gave you from OSHA, the only reason there's no fines is because they hid. It said they were closed. So, I don't know if you guys can read that to everybody, but I have it right here. [laughter] So, I don't know where that's coming from that there were no violations. It was he was closed for business. So, OSHA can't go in to a business if there's nobody there. And then the second thing is for Leo's credibility. I talked to him for what 45 minutes today and you told me straight out the defense wasn't done. Am I right or wrong? You said no. Mr. Clom, you can't you can't question.

All right. So, who questions him? Can I ask you to ask him? Cuz now he tells you one thing, tells me something else. So, he said it was 90% done. It It's about 8% done. Well, I said 90%. And he just I I threw out that.

He owns the house, the lock cabin at the bottom of the hill. We can see 200 yards of garbage. So if she's got a fence, the ferah's got a fence. Where's our fence? The whole end of my house is glass and we're looking at a dump. And then as far as No one's bringing up the EPA with the water. He has a dumpster out there with K-frames in it rusting away, wide open, not covered up. So that's all going in the ground. The tires on the ground. All he do is move stuff. There's no evidence that he took anything out of there. He took tires from over there and put them over there. So, as far as he's concerned, they're gone. They're not gone. They're hidden. We see everything. We live there. So, I don't think it's fair that him and I have to look at a dump and nobody else does. So, that fence is about, I'd say, 10% complete. And he started it with no permit. And he still don't have a permit for the gate. So, what Leo's telling you and telling me is two different things. I was on the phone with him three hours ago because I wanted to know what was going on tonight. So, he told me he was going to make him fence the whole place. So, now he's telling you it's 90% done. Which one is it?

I'm just being honest here. Which one? The screen. The screening. The fence. You told me he was going to fence the whole thing. Mr. Now you're telling it's 90% done. It's like 10% done. We're not stupid. Mr. Clone, I'm sorry. Anyone else?

I will try to get this done tonight. Hi guys, I'm Stan Zuba Stanley uh 910 Iron Mine Hill Road. Um what we're looking at here is not an issue of the last two to six weeks. We're looking at an issue over the last several decades. Okay, this property is run unchecked and for some reason allowed to expand unchecked in direct violation of our zoning ordinances. Okay. We've now gone to the point where we've I've hired an attorney to at least look at the zoning ordinance in town and he's come up with an opinion with that and I believe I shared that with the council via email. You you all received that, correct? So, I'll go over the basics of it. I I hope you've taken the time to re, you know, review it. And there's a lot to our arguments, and I wish I had it a little better organized, but I'm going to kind of pick away at it, and feel free to stop me or interject at any time. So, took this picture yesterday. Okay, this is a vernal pool. Okay, this is nonfrozen water. Okay, yesterday. There's no snow on it. It's active. A vernal pool is a very sensitive environmental site. Okay, I don't know a ton about it. I'm not a wild wetlands biologist, but I do know when we work for the utilities. I have a tree company. When there's a vernal pool, I can't even gas up my chainsaw unless I put it in a little kitty pool first. They're that worried about spillage of gas. Okay, this is the property marker. The rental pool is just outside the property.

Just outside the property. And this is the salvage yard behind it. Okay, so just want to let you know there are wetlands in sensitive areas right there. Next slide, please. Okay, these are some pictures of the salvage yard taken from the street yesterday. Uh you can see some fencing in place, but from the street it does not block the view of the salvage. The salvage yard sits low, you know, in a depression and from all of the sides in the street. Do we have the next slide, too? By the way, again, this is from the street. Yep, that's good. Go to the I mean, the fence doesn't do anything to block the view. I'm not standing up on a ladder or anything. This is ground level. Okay, next slide. This is looking down the entrance way. Again, you get some fence over here. Nothing is strained here. This is what we look at. All right, next slide, please. I was hoping there no way to get that focus. All right. So, we'll skip to this part, guys. This is what I could find for the

town or zoning ordinance that refers to non-confirming lots, non-conforming use of land and structures in the town of North Smithfield. Looks like it was adopted in 1973. Okay, this was the part I was missing with the letter I sent you with the attorney. Our attorney clearly his opinion is that the property in question has to be limited to the scope of operations in 1973. Okay. I will disagree with Mr. Zangarry when he just sent that the license goes to the property. The license does not go to the property. The license goes to the individual. Okay? Or the business. The property carries the pre-existing non-conforming use. So there's two separate things there. And I'm going to say he's wrong in the statement he made. Um so as I said, we trace this back to 1973. This seems to be the zoning ordinance that established the pre-existing nonconforming use. So again, working off the opinion that our attorney came up with, this property has to be limited to the scope, size, and operation from 1973. Okay, that's what's allowed in the pre-existing 920. Okay. And the town of North Smithfield has not put in any mechanism to modify that. Some towns have language in their zoning ordinances that will allow a special use permit from we keep hearing to modify the pre-existing non-conforming. Our language specifically

does not allow that. And the language in here, uh, can we bring this up a little bit? Well, actually, it's right here. The line of blue,

the line I'm really looking right here. It is the intent of this ordinance to permit these nonconformities conformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. Okay, that's what we've decided back in 1973. This is the ordinance that as far as I can tell, as far as the research we've done is still in place. Okay, this is what the town of Smithfield said. We do not need to encourage their survival. All right, so let's see if we get another slide up here. Like I said, this is all the ordinance. I can provide you with copies of this. Like I found this today actually. Can you go back to the little part? No such non-conforming use shall be enlarged or increased, nor extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this ordinance. Okay? So, it's not just the lot, it's the scope of what was happening on that lot at that time. Do we understand that? So, like Carrie said last time, before it was a convenience store, now it's a super Walmart.

Okay? [clears throat] We're only allowed to be a convenience store. All right? So, we have some aerial photos we'll show in a little bit that show what this property looked like in 1973 versus what it looks like now. And these are Rhode Island DEM aerial photos. They're completely available anywhere. All right. Another little interesting one here. Uh you see the top EPA industrial storm water faction. Okay. Just need the second paragraph.

Yeah. I wish they wish we had done this a little different for you. Okay. What type of industrial facilities are required to obtain permit coverage? It's a storm water permit. The fact sheet specifically discusses storm water discharges from automobile salvage yards as defined by standard industrial classifications. That's the SIC code and include battery reclaimers, salvage yards, and automobile recyclers primarily SIC code 5015. I think if you recall at the first town council meeting I came to I mentioned that on his registration with the secretary of state he had the wrong FIC code. He's got himself as a manufacturer there. Don't know if that was on purpose by accident but he actually falls under 5015. Okay. Facilities and products in this group fall under the following categories. All of which require coverage under an industrial stormwater permit. activities related to dismantling of used motor vehicles for the purpose of selling parts, wholesale or retail distribution of used motor vehicle parts. So, if we're all in compliance, I'm assuming we have a storm water discharge permit. Would the council ask if he has a storm water discharge permit per EPA regulations?

Do we know if they have a this business has a storm water Okay, thank you. Okay. Um, let's see. We'll get to another slide here. Excuse me, Zuba. Um, can you when you're talking, can you just make sure you're holding the microphone? I got to text that. I guess our thousands of viewers are not being able to hear you. So, Gota I don't think it's on. Yeah, I don't. It It sounded a lot louder when you started. They're on this one. It's on. Hello. Your batteries are dead. I'll yell a little. How's that?

Sure.

All right. So, guys, if if we can if we can go to this next slide, the aerial photos. We'll we'll go there. [sighs] Yeah. I can't guys. So, the the quality of this is terrible. But this is an aerial photo of this property, 955 Iron Mine Hill Road. Is there any way we could go to the actual DEM website and try to put their photo up? If you type in Rhode Island DEM aerial photos,

yeah, that that first one right there should work. Uh, scroll down. Keep going. Keep going. Access online aerial viewer on the right hand side. Hit okay. Start zooming in on Northern Rhode Island.

Wow. I wish I knew that when I was doing this. 955 Iron Mine Hill Road. All right. So, on the right hand side here, if you scroll down on the right column, I I believe you're going to see that you're looking at the 2024 photo. Yep. So, let's X out spring of 2024 and Nope. Other one up. Nope. Give me that one back. Yeah, get rid of that one. All right. So, this is the most recent DEM aerial photo. And if you could slide this screen a little right so we can see the whole operation here. Or get X out of that, I guess. So, I'll I'll yell. So I can point a little. This is the Royy's residence right here. Okay. This is the entrance to the salvage yard and this is the operation of they've occupied the entire lot. Okay. It's a little shy of five acres and they are now occupying the entire lot. And again, I'll disagree with Mr. Cody that the cars have all been removed from the neighbor's property. I walked around uh with Mr. Roy on his property yesterday and when we get to the back of the property uh looks like the salvageard people have put up some string lines and stuff thinking about fence and uh outside of their property not on Mr.

Royy's property, but on somebody else's property, there are vehicles. There's probably 15 vehicles outside of the salvage yard out in the woods there. So, either they're still expanded over their property line or somebody else is running a little salvage parking lot out there. So, I I disagree with you on that and clearly saw that yesterday. So, as you can see, they're covering the whole lot. If we can get the choices on years back over here. Oh, hang on one sec. Zoom it up here for me, please. Uh, actually get the uh get the map choices back up again, please. Can you go to the spring of 25 here? Scroll down. Oh, actually, I'm sorry. We are on the right right photo. If you can start zooming in, trying to zoom in on this area right over here, please.

All right. Now, scroll this way a little, guys. As far as I can tell, this is a car crusher. Okay, that was there in the DEM aerial photo spring of this year. I believe at the last couple of council meetings, we were told there was a delay in getting the Crusher there. We couldn't get a Crusher. Um, we had to wait for the Crusher. Couldn't get rid of the cars because we didn't have a Crusher. Well, Crusher was there in the spring, guys. Crush is still there. So, I question the information that is being relayed to the council and to other agencies. And if this crusher is truly run by another service, they don't use it very much because it sure does sit around on this property a lot. So, for something that was so busy they couldn't get um it's been sitting on the property for quite a while. All right. So, if we could now go back to the the map choices, and I'd like to go to 1972. And All right. So, this is a little better than what I had in my my uh drive. Could you zoom out just a little? All right. Uh, one more zoom, please. So, in 1972 aerial photo, here is the Royy's property. Okay. Here is the access road to get to the permitted salvage yard. Now, I said this is 1972. We'll take a look at the next one's in the 80s. We'll

look at that. It doesn't look all that different. Okay. So, my argument and my attorney's argument, and by the way, he would have been here to do this for me because we like people in suits, but um unfortunately, all the people that do this work all have their council meetings scheduled on Monday nights. So, if this goes another two weeks, we will have the representative from his office here. But you know, the reason he's not presenting this is he couldn't be here tonight because of other town commitments. Well, he said, if you look, this is what the town accepted as pre-existing non-conforming. Okay, if you want to go back and now go to the 1981 aerial photo, get rid of the 72. Even 10 years or call it eight years after what I'm saying, this became pre-existing non-conforming. You can see that the operation is out here in the woods. It's not down here on the street. It's not along this area. Okay. Can we go back to the the latest photo, the 2025? Keep that one in mind. Look at this. I mean, all of this expansion has happened. All of this expansion has happened. Cars are inventory. His inventory got bigger. He's expanding his business. He's not fitting in the pre-existing non-conforming use that the town granted him back in 1973. Any questions on that, guys? Okay. Can we uh let's get rid of the photos and see if we can get to another slide here. Back in the thumb drive. Um, yep. Keep going.

Keep going. Keep going. I got a good one on the crusher. Keep going. All right. This is my opinion from my attorney that we hired to take a look at the the use and uh let's go to the second page. You know what was once a small neighborhood business engaged. All right, this this will do. With respect to pre-existing non-conforming use, a zoning ordinance may permit a non-conforming development to be altered under either of the following conditions. The ordinance may establish a special use permit authorizing the alteration which must be approved by the zoning board of review following the procedure established in this chapter in the zoning ordinance. Or the ordinance may allow the addition and enlargement, expansion, intensification or change of use of non-conforming development either by permit or by right and may distinguish between the foregoing actions by zoning districts. Let's go up. This is our statute. Okay. I've taken the opportunity to review article four of the town of North Smithfield z v z v z v z v z v z v z v z v z v z voting ordinance which addresses pre-existing non-conforming uses. The ordinance expresses the town's very strong policy disfavoring the continuation of pre-existing non-conforming uses. It says it is the intent of this chapter to permit these non-comp yeah conformalities to continue until they are removed but not to encourage their survival. Okay. It is further the intent of this chapter that non-conform conformalities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended. Non-conforming uses are declared by this chapter to be

incompatible with permitted uses in the districts involved. Okay. Um, a non-conforming use of a structure, a non-conforming use of land, or a non-conforming use of structure and land in combination shall not be extended or enlarged by the addition of other uses of a nature which would be pro prohibited generally in the district involved. No such non-conforming use shall be enlarged or increased, nor extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of the adoption or amendment of this chapter. So specifically, I'm saying he has to go back to being in that little pile of cars out in the woods and that's what our ordinance says.

[clears throat]

Is there any disagreement there? I mean, that's our ordinance. We can go a little further. It says, "Well, the state law provides cities and towns with the option to allow alteration of nonconformities uses by special permit." North Smithfield has not adopt adopted that policy. Instead, the town has adopted the policy that pre-existing non-conforming uses cannot be enlarged or intensified under any circumstances and should be eliminated wherever possible. This means the subject junkyard business must as a matter of law be limited to the size, scale, and intensity of what it was in the past when this zoning ordinance was first enacted and this use was first prohibited in this zone. Now, the reason we don't have the dates in here is I had to go to town hall today and dig through all the old books to find the ordinances that we found, to find the dates that we found. There's a lot of digging. It's not easy to find. So, his scope needs to be limited to what this was in 1973. All right. I have a couple of other interesting little articles if we can get the pages to come up.

Yeah, I'm looking [snorts] for page. I think Mr. Zuba. The only thing I would like to state at this moment and I would love to be able to weigh in in the capacity of the zoning board and as a zoning official and all [snorts] of the other officials in town and DEM and EPA. Unfortunately, our scope is very limited to the board of lenture. Okay. So, we can only make decisions as the board of lenture.

Gotcha. [snorts] However, given what you've the information that you've provided tonight, I mean, I'm very very intimately familiar with this ordinance um [snorts] just given some of my own experiences. I do think that there's some validity here. However, we cannot act on um in a zoning [clears throat] capacity. Understand? Um there are several other issues here. Mhm. Oh, okay. Yes. Yes. It it goes on and on and on. Um

I just wanted to state that that we can't act like this information is obviously hugely helpful, but we cannot use this information to necessarily um inform the board of lensure position. No, completely understand. And if nothing else, just keep in mind the pictures I showed earlier how the screening isn't helping us, isn't preventing any view. Well, if the property was being used the way it's supposed to be at the scape scope and scale it was supposed to be at, we [clears throat] wouldn't see the stuff anyway. Yes. Fence or not. Agreed. [snorts] You know what I'm saying? So, maybe I made a real long-winded argument to get there. No, I think it was it's very helpful information for all of us to understand.

Okay. And but Stan, can I just make a comment though with all this this information as well as all the information we've been getting for the last couple of meetings of all the different zoning potential issues. Can we ask that the administration take a deep dive into this since I mean you've been given and not you but we've been giving given so much information and especially with this show this slideshow here. Can we look into this and if there's stuff that we need to um if there are violations or or zoning issues that we take care of them accordingly and quickly. We will immediately respond.

Yeah, we will immediately immediately respond to those. And Mr. If you uh did you hand out all these documents to the council already? No, these most of the stuff I'm talking about right now I acquired this morning at town hall. If I would provide the council with if at all possible if you could provide copies to the administration guidance I'd appreciate that.

Yep. Um I would like to point out though that so in the municipal court documents that I obtained okay um the the scrapyard, the junkyard salvage operation, whatever you want to call it, did receive a $500 fine for non-conforming use of land. Okay. Okay. It says, "No such non-conforming use shall be enlarged or increase nor expanded to occupy a greater area of land that was than what then was occupied at the effective date of the adoption of the amendment of this ordinance." Okay. So, in municipal court, we're finding him for not being in compliance with this ordinance. And I think the missing part was to where this has to go back. So they are in violation of the municipal court until they get this back to the size and scope it needs to be.

Mr. Zuba, what's the date on that? This? Yeah. September 3rd, 2025. Thank you.

All right. Um, regarding more of the licensing issue, like I said, the license goes to the business. Okay, I am focusing on the license. The land use pre-existing non-conforming stays with the property whether or not you grant the license. All right? We're not tackling and trying to take away the pre-existing non-conforming. We would like to see it go back to that use. Okay. And there are many reasons not to reissue this business license. Okay. There's a lot of technical issues, but the biggest is it's a big public safety hazard at this point. I'll expand on that just a little bit. Um, to save time, let's skip this one. Give me give me the next page. This is a building was constructed on the the property before and had to be taken down because it didn't meet the ordinance. Um, um, actually this is a good one, too. So 1979 in this citation, auto part sales on the lot constitutes a change of use. Okay, so a change of use occurred in 1979 to allow auto part sales. What I did find and unfortunately I misplaced the document. I will get it for you. Back in 1969 when they applied for the license, it was granted to run a salvage yard in the rear of the farm. This was a farm at one time. That's the language from the document. Okay. A salvage yard. Now, I'm assuming that means that a salvage yard means selling scrap steel, something to

that effect. But it clearly says here that can't sell auto parts. So in 1979, the town's telling them you can't even sell auto parts. Now again, like I said, there's been decades of unchecked growth and [snorts] just run a muck here. Okay? Nobody's been keeping this in check. So we're saddled with having to deal with it all now. It's a big burden. Could I have the next one, please? One more. All right. So, Department of Business Regulations. And I just put this up here to show you. Mr. Roy came before the town council November 7th, 1980 to renew his license for 1981. At that time, his request was denied and the permit expired as of December 1st, 1980 at midnight. So, this has been denied before. came back somehow but it has been denied. So just saying it's it's the precedent's there. Could I have the next one please? All right. So we already talked about that one. Pull up page six. I'm going to change gears here just a little bit. I know.

Okay, I'll try to make this one quick because this is what I emailed you guys all the other night. So, in doing our research, we've been trying to put together the rules and regulations that govern salvage yards. Okay? Very difficult to find. And then we stumbled across this. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management back in 2001 created a self-certification program for salvage yards. Okay, it's a 77 or 75page document that lists the best practices for salvage yards. And it allows salvage yards in the state of Rhode Island to self-certify that they meet these requirements. It says right in this document, it's not required, but it's recommended. Okay, this is a great document. I would recommend that the town of North Smithfield take this document, work it over, adopted into an ordinance to regulate salvage yard operations in the town of North Smithfield. The other salvage yards and the previous owner of this salvage yard have all signed off as self-certified. So, it's not like we're dropping a bomb on them. Something's different. The previous owner says he met these standards. The other two operations, Bernard's in town, said they met them. Bernard's is gone. North Smithfield Auto Salvage on Pound Hill Road is a signature on this. So, they all say that they meet these requirements. Now, can we go to the next page? This is [clears throat] the workbook that comes with the self-satis uh certification program. Okay? Tells them how to do it. But a very interesting page four of this workbook. I need the highlights right there, please. All auto salvage yard facilities operating in the state of Rhode Island must comply with the standards outlined

in the certification workbook, whether they self-certify or not. Okay. So, here's your Bible. Here's what they need to do according to the state of Rhode Island to comply. So, like I said, I think it's perfect to adopt as an ordinance, but it's also a good blueprint to look at for what should happen at a salvage operation.

May I ask a clarifying question? I don't know if this is a question for you, town solicitor, but who would uphold these requirements? Like if if the state of Rhode Island says that you don't have to essentially complete the certification, but you must comply with the standards, what entity within whether it's at a state or a municipal level ensures that these are being upheld? Well, I think Mr. Zuber's point is for the council for the ordinance, but currently, but the list and I again we got this 7 o'clock this morning, right? Um but I the list is

of a host of organizations and requirements. So DBI controls the license, DM controls the environmental. There's a whole list of requirements there that it basically saying there's a whole bunch of state requirements, right, for all auto salvage facilities to follow. Okay. And each one of those they may have little offices within those departments like DM may have an office of compliance. Yeah. Department of regulation issues licenses and they will require those in order to issue a license. Okay. How about town? We don't have the authority. This is all state requirements within our ordinance right now currently. Right now we don't have any of this in our ordinance. Yeah. So guys, that's what I'm asking. I'm asking we establish a couple of step process here.

Yeah.

I'm asking that, you know, we deny the license for various reasons we're getting to and have already heard. I'm asking that we take a look at the zoning and get it back to the scope and size that it's supposed to be. I'm asking that we adapt this as an ordinance that somebody sponsor it. Make it, you know, it's got to be tuned up a little to be an ordinance. make it an ordinance. Okay. And then the town of North Smithfield will now have the ability to have rules and regulations in place for a salvage operation. We currently have two in town. And it it it's been very very difficult. The problem with this is I mean we're looking at town council for licensing. We're looking at zoning for the zoning regulations. We're looking at the fire department for the NFPA. Okay. We're looking at uh DEM for the environmental. We're looking at uh groundwater with the EPA. You know, it it's there are so many different avenues you have to pursue here and they don't all work together. There's no one person you can call, but at least having that ordinance in place would give the town some teeth to do their own enforcement.

It's just it's a suggestion, but I think it's a good one. Yeah. And if you go I think we should definitely work on changing our or strengthening our ordinance before the re the renewals come up again because right now we're in the middle of it. So it's something we should obviously revisit before the end of the year. All right. So can we go to the next slide? Keep going a little bit. [sighs] Uh yep. So, here's North Smithfield Auto Salvage Auto Recycling. They're signed on. Okay.

And this is as of 2019. It was the most current certification list I could find. Uh, can we go a little further?

Uh, Capital City Salvage, DBA, Leo's Auto Parts. So, they're saying in 2019 they were compliant with this. I don't believe it, but they self-certified that they are. If you read through this document, I don't think there's any way they met the self-certification, but they claim they did. And uh Bernard's is in here somewhere, but they don't. Uh Bernard's Auto Parts, North Smithfield. Uh I don't think they still operate. I think think we're a solar field there now. Um, so guys, what I'm asking in a very long- winded way is not to renew the license until we're in compliance with something here. whether we're in compliance with the zoning getting them back to that size compliance with I mean I'm I'm waiting for the answer on the storm water permit here. DEM also has similar regulations regarding uh a rips permit. I understand that DEM did go out and said that they do not need a RIPES permit. I looked in the regulations and I'll I'll get these to you too guys. I ran out of time. says it's mandatory for a salvage operation unless it's 100% contained with inside a building that they have to have a ripe permit. Okay, so DEM's not doing their job either. There's a lot of people not doing their job here and unfortunately it's falling on the people in the audience here to do the job for these people and force them to do it. That's why we've gone out and hired an attorney to look at the ordinance. Um if I have to, we'll hire, you know, an environmental attorney to go to DEM. will start chasing all these leads down, but it's going to take some time. So, I don't see any reason to allow this

business to continue operating the way it has. I mean, right now, we're running into problems. We're having confrontations. The neighbors don't feel safe. Okay, we've brought that up a couple times and some nose ton-nose confrontations in people's yards. Now, everybody's filming everybody. We're filming them. They're filming us. words are being said. It's not a good situation. Okay. I want to say they misled you about the autoc crusher. You know, it was there in the spring. Why weren't they crushing cars? They said they'd done it twice in the last four years, I believe. And we had to wait and wait and wait to get this thing. Well, it was there earlier. Did it leave and come back? I don't know. But like I said, the thing's still sitting there now. Um, want to talk a little bit about the NFPA. The fire department went out today and said there's no gas storage on this property. Right. Is that what we said, Bill?

There's there's no gasoline being stored on this property. Right. I didn't say no. I said that he had no violations. No violations. Is there gas being stored on the property? There is. From what I saw today, there was a gallon gas. Okay. So, at one of the last meetings we had, the attorney for the salvage yard said that they were draining the gas out of the cars and they were running it in their equipment. Okay, he did say that. Do you guys recall that?

Okay, there are hundreds of cars in here. [clears throat] We really think a 5 gallon gas can is what they're using to transfer gas out. I mean, if there's a hundred cars and a gallon per car came in, that's a 100 gallons of gas. Okay, there are issues here. I don't think we're getting the full story. Um, I questioned DEM about no violations. The people at DEM told me that when they came out and spoke to the owner that he told them all the cars come in dry. They come in without fluids. I mean, we heard people last meeting saying they drill the motors or they were drilling the motors and the transmissions to get the oil out, but now they take the plugs out and put the plugs back in. You know, there's a lot of misinformation and just things that don't seem right here. Um, there's an issue of a secondhand goods license here. We haven't even gotten to that. That's another issue that needs to be addressed. Um, the only time this yard is complying with anything is at the threat of its license when you're forcing them to do things. I completely disagree on the fencing issue. I believe the law says fenced entirely unless there's a natural barrier. Okay. I walked with Mr. Roy around his property. There's no fence along 90% of your property. Okay. One of It's kind of funny on the aerial photos, one of the neighbors a couple meetings ago said he didn't want a fence on his side. He's had a fence back there since the 1990s. It shows on the aerial photos. Okay. Um there's a lot of bad faith here. Um, I don't know what this individual's

knowledge is about running a salvage operation. Is he qualified to run this operation? You know, you're talking about hazardous materials. You're talking about life safety here. You're talking about they had no respect for the neighborhood, loading, unloading out in the street, blocking people's driveways. We're hearing different stories about how fluids are handled. Um, I mean, when you look at the manual, the workbook says batteries are supposed to be removed. You can walk around the edge of the salvage yard there and just see hoods open, batteries still in the car, motors are stolen cars. Um, it it's not good. And in direct violation of what you've asked them to do, they received some motors this week. Okay. They took in material. Day after Christmas, there was somebody in their driveway with a car up on ramps working on the car. Seemed to go in and out of the salvage yard like it was a regular thing for him. So even under this scrutiny, they're still bringing in material against your wishes, against our wishes. Um, there is a DEM complaint pending. It was filed uh late in the day today. I know you said there were none. There is one. Uh, I can show you a copy of it on my phone if you'd like, but it was submitted. So, basically, guys, you've got decades of unchecked expansion here that need to go back to 1973. You've got, in my opinion, and I think the opinion of any logical person, you've got a a grave safety hazard here. Something is going to happen to a person, the environment. I It's just not a good situation.

That's where I'm at. So, on the grounds of health and public safety, I would ask that you not renew the license. He does not need a license to get his yard back into compliance. Cars do not have to be crushed on site. cars can be removed and crushed somewhere else. Okay, this operation, he's run it for four years. All of a sudden, worried about what he's doing in the last six weeks. He's got four years of bad history. And then the previous owners before him weren't any better in my opinion. They just expanded and spilled out wherever they wanted to extent now, I mean, prior to the licenses issue coming up, he's on two neighbors properties. He's still on one of them or somebody is. I don't know if they're his vehicles or not. Sure does look like it because the the loader that drives out of the junkyard out the back is right there with the cars.

So, I don't know. Do you guys have any questions for me? No, it's a lot of information, but if you could please make sure you send that all this to the administrator so they can look into all these zoning issues. I will.

Thank you. So again, on the grounds of we don't I know you're not the zoning board, but I think that that at least don't give him his license back until they get back to that scope. That's what I would ask. And like we showed you, the license has disappeared before and it's come back. The pre-existing non-conforming won't change, but nothing says the license has to exist. Anybody can apply for that license. The license does not have to be continuous. You see what I'm saying? And under threat of not having the license, we might get some action. But I completely disagree on the fencing issue. We're still in a neighbor's yard. He's not giving you the truth. They're bringing in parts against your will. I don't know, guys. It's not It's not right. There's no reason that the neighbors should have to put up with this risk for one individual that has nothing at stake here. He's operating as an LLC, as far as I know, without insurance. There is a requirement with the Department of Business Regulations for a $500,000 liability policy. We have a request into the Department of Business Regulations to see if we have a current certificate. Okay, we haven't gotten that back yet. Um, we know he doesn't have workman's comp insurance unless he's rectified that in the last two weeks. All right. So, he's running unchecked. First sign of disaster as an LLC, he can walk away. Okay. As far as I know, he has no assets in his name other than two vehicles. So, he can go scot-free. The neighbors in the town are left with what with what [clears throat] is left. Do not renew his license. Please force him to comply and clean up.

Thank you, Sam. Thank you. Anyone else? [clears throat] I'm losing my voice a little bit, so I might have to use this microphone a little bit more than everybody else tonight. Uh Carrie Roy 911 Iron Mine Hill Road. Um let me just pull this up here. [clears throat] [laughter] All right,

getting yours ready to go. I got to get mine here. All right, HT Auto LLC. Always the cover page. [clears throat] You can go to the next one. That's just fancy. Uh, this is the list of violations. Is this a good faith business? Really? So, you've all seen the DBA's violations. I just put that there as aesthetic so I can remind you. You can go to the next page. [clears throat] Let's really look at all of them. State, municipal, what should be, what what has not been. So, we have all the first ones are from the DBA. He's got the June 16th for Defian annual report with the Secretary of State. Did not have his license displayed from 2021 to 2025. He has not kept any records of any vehicles. So, let's be real about this. That's a major major one because you don't know what kind of fluids are coming in for the last four years, what's going out for the last four years, what could be dangerous, what's not, what he's been doing with everything. um has he has been open for business on Sundays and holidays. We saw that encroaching on neighbors properties and I put the laws with the town and the state and whatever agency it it put up to fence from public view expansion of scope of non-conformed use of land use of shipping containers that he should have been using misuse of shipping containers uh off streetet parking and loading open outside license hours of operation. We can go to the next one. So, now we're up to 13. Oh. Oh, yep. One more. Number 13. No permit when he did his driveway whatsoever. There's wetlands over there. He filled

in the wetlands. DEM had to come down, tell him to unfill the wetlands. He filled them in. He didn't have a permit. No one came and inspected him. Not the town. Uh wh Oh, that's all right. No permit for the first fence he put up in May 2025 at all. No permit for the second attempt of putting up the fence abudding my property. Uh he built the wood fence with no permit on September 30th. The permit is for 10 101. I'll show you that he built the the the fence that he has now, the one that he just put up. He didn't have a permit for that. He built that on December 29th. There was no permit. He wasn't supposed to start till January 2nd and he didn't get a permit till December 31st. How you build an offense without a permit? Nobody else I mean it's it's the laws people. Come on. Uh defecating on a budding property. Those are the demo907 solid waste regulations. Also no northfields chapter 1889 chapter 2 229 piece in and in and good water in Northfield. We got your EPA violations, hazardous waste that he had, the 279C. Then the other set hazardous waste that he had for hazardous waste container condition. That one was the stop and release. Yes, he did rectify them. How many months did it take him to rectify those? You guys have the report. His lawyer just gave it to you. Four months. Four months he had a leaking. He didn't contain it. Four months. Clean up properly and manage. Four months. Okay. Well, I guess we can just let oil leak for four months all over the place and have bad containers that are just doing it. Next, you can go to the next one right there. All right. Now, we're at Oh, yep. Now we're at violation number 21, hazardous waste violation with the

containers above. Uh he didn't have the containers marked at all. We're also at no restrooms on site, which would was an OSHA federal law 29. No workers comp insurance which is a Rhode Island general title 28 chapter 29 a public health which is a Rhode Island general title 23 health and safety public nuisance chapter 188-9 chapter 229 peace and good these are 25 violations some of them should have been violations not going to say who missed out on some of that um and they and there you go that's basically where we're at right now 25 violations in four years. A business, it's not, we're not talking about one violation. We're not talking about two. We're not talking about three. We're talking about a pile of violations throughout the years. We can go to the next one. Uh, can you play to the one to the left? This is the the December 1st. I just want to refresh what the motion was so we all remember. Oh, I don't know why the volume's not playing, but I I gave a little what you guys said anyway down here. Town council motion 12125. operate solely and you can read that operate solely for the purpose of removing product, recycle vehicles, auto parts, trash from the property and not allowing any new vehicles or stuff to be delivered to the property. Then we can go to this one right here. Hopefully the volume's on it, but I don't know why the volume didn't go on. Um, well, Miss D. Christopharo said the town council motion 121525 said

operate within the confined scope of cleaning up to abate all violations. That's where he's the confined scope. All right, let's go to the next page, please. This is this is not the confined scope. We're getting engines in. We haven't even been here. He's supposed to It's supposed to be until we come back on January 5th. Why are we getting stuff in? That's not in the confined scope of cleaning up. That's getting stuff in without the town council even saying it's okay without us even knowing if he's cleaning up. There's the van right there. He's got engines. This was on 1231. There it is right there. Again, that just shows uh I that just shows the metadata. If you guys wanted to see the metadata from that, that's just a video showing that that was exactly from 12:3125 that video. And you can see it down here. That's where he's leaving. He's leaving empty. There are no engines on there. So, those engines absolutely got put into the junkyard. If you want to play the last one so they can just see it. The engines, there's no engines on the back of that. There's a trailer right there. Absolutely no engines, by the way. I'm not even sure that's safe to be carrying engines like that on a trailer like that. I mean, if they have to be in a confined area, don't they have to be somewhat on a confined trailer for that and and delivering stuff? Because I don't know. It just doesn't seem safe to me. You can go to the next page. All right. Here we are. January 2nd, 2026. Another delivery. We got stuff there. They know we caught them, so they decided to cover up whatever it was. I'm sure it was something they weren't supposed to have like usual. He's going in. He's backing up. He's coming out on that video. Empty on the back of the trailer right there.

This is now violating what you guys even made as an order in the middle of when he's supposed to be abating. This is the problem that we're having. This is the problem we've been having for four years with this place. We can go to the next one. I know it's tricky because they play over again. I think PowerPoint really updated to a um this is what Stanley was talking about the day after Christmas pe they're not open. You'll see the next pictures that will show you the chains across. Um people are pulling in. I have a that's a video if you want to show it just so we can show that people are actually pulling in so no one can make excuses that it didn't happen or or whatever excuse is going to be brought up. All right. Someone's pulling in. Junkyard's not even open. You can do it down here. Someone else is pulling it. Junkyard's not even open. Who are these random vehicles? Because usually the owner is driving a truck and the guy usually has come in with a white truck. So, we just always have random cars going in and out. I think that's the problem. Like, who's coming in? Who's who's what kind of people like, you know, it it just leaves it open for trouble when you do stuff like that. We can go to the next one over here. I'm just going to do quick This was See the chains across. It's closed. It's closed. I don't know who's who it is because we never know because random cars just keep coming back in and out when nobody's there. Owner's not there. Who knows? Just random people from all over. Cousins, sisters, brothers, aunts, and uncles, I guess. I don't know. Um, you can go to the next one. Uh, this is them building the fence on December 29th with no permit. You can go over here. What does this say? Oh, the permit was created on December 31st, I believe. And there's a fence being built on 1229. You can I think I go down a

little bit more, but the date on this one actually says uh not starting work until January 2nd or January I believe January 2nd for the permit. There it is. Starting date, January 2nd. December 29th. It's amazing. Times and dates always change. Um, we can go to the next one. This is the other fence that he put up. The date up there, September 30th. That's the metadata up here. You can play this video right here. That's the permit for that just to prove it. This is, like I said, five times without a permit. I mean, this is it's the same behavior over and over. There you go. That wasn't created. The permit wasn't even created till October 1st. We did a September 30th putting up a fence. Really? Really? You would think after the first time, okay, maybe you don't know the laws or the rules or whatever, but we're now at like five times. So, I mean, it's getting ridiculous. Uh, can you go to the next one? I hope the volume works on this one. I don't know why the volume's not working on it. Anyway, we can replay it back on you on on YouTube uh at a later date, but um this was Edward's cousin and he said that they don't get wet engines in. They used to they had to put plugs in them. they don't get wet engines in and and um they used they just get them all dry and and uh that's I don't know if that's really the case because uh we can go to the next one.

You can I wish we had the volume for it but I don't know why we don't have the volume for it. There is a car there is a there is a tow truck right here with a car on the back of it. They are driving that car off the tow truck into the junkyard. Where's Is it Is it empty? How's it driving? There's no gas in it. What's going I thought we just got stuff in dry. We didn't We didn't do the wet stuff. How are cars driving right off of tow trucks? It's phenomenal. Um you can go to the next one over here. This was another one. By the way, this was This truck was here like an hour and a the time this is closing. I can get the met you'll see this car is also being driven off that off that truck is going to be driven into the junk stops again. I thought they didn't get fluids in vehicles. I thought that's not how they were getting the vehicles. Weren't they all drained? How are these vehicles being driven off these trucks and into the junkyard? They're all supposed to be drained. I thought that's what he said. They're all drained. They're all drained. That's what he told DEM, right? They're all drained. Let's go to the next video. All right. Look over here. This car also. Well, I mean, look at it's a piece of junk. Someone's driving it down. They hit the I wish you had the volume because they literally slam it into the road as they're driving it right off the tow truck. Right off the tow truck. They're driving it right down, spinning the tires. But we don't get cars that have fluids. And I'm over here, I guess. Right. You can go to the next one. It's just gonna It's just the same. It's just the same one. And that's that's all I have for you. So, basically what I have to say to you is there's a lot of discrepancies and what we're showing you guys in evidence and what is actually being said

against what our evidence is. I stand up continuously here every single time. And I know his lawyer might say, "Well, you know," and we dance around stuff. I show you picture and video. I'm not dancing around anything. I have all the evidence to everything that you guys have asked. I've putting up facts. Um like Stanley said there there are other reports that are in the process right now because they've come across a lot of this evidence and are working on it. And um on the permit it says fence around the whole junkyard. That's what it says on the permit. I didn't show it here tonight. You can go on the Northfield, look it up in the records for Northfield. It says fence around the whole junkyard. That's what it says. And I was told fence around the junkyard. In the winter time, there are no trees. I can clearly see all the way across the junkyard. It's there's no trees over there. There is no natural barrier in the winter time. It's bare. I can see the whole entire junkyard just standing out on my side yard. just see it where the fence ends on my side. I can see all through the junkyard because there are no natural barrier there. Unless there is a 24 12 season barrier that he can put up there, the fence is going to have to do because I don't want to look at it in the winter time and I can clearly see across the whole entire junkyard. So, something's got to be done about that. We can't keep giving special exceptions all the time because it's not working. Special exceptions get taken advantage of. We've seen it. I've proved it. You've seen my pictures. They get taken advantage of every single time. And it's causing more tension with the neighbors. It's causing more tension in the neighborhood. And it's getting ridiculous at this point. Something more has to be done than us living like this and having to deal with this for four

years with people who are telling us in conversations, we need to move out if we don't like it. It's a junkyard. It's not it's a it's a salvage yard, first of all, a junkyard. It's not a dump. It's not where you go and defecate on people's properties or take mattresses in. And we shouldn't have to move cuz we've been there generational. You just came in four years ago. We should not have to move because you don't know how to properly run a junkyard. That's basically what it comes down to. So, I urge you all to rethink about this license tonight because it has caused a lot of tension and especially lately it's caused a lot of tension and he's not done the whole entire fence around. I don't care if he's done it 15% 10%. In the last motion you guys made, it did not say get 10% of the fence done and that is it. It says to abate all violations by word verbatim in the motion and that's not been done. So I urge you all to since he's not abated all violations to deny the license again today until he does come into conform to what he's supposed to be doing to what he's supposed to be be doing. Honestly, any questions from anybody?

No, thank you. All right. Thank you, Carrie. What's that? Good job. Oh, thank you. Anyone else?

Hey guys, just Stan Zuba 910 Iron Mine Hill Road. Just a couple other things. We're also looking into the solid waste ordinances. Okay, if you look at the aerial photos, if you look back at the older photos, you'll see cars in the junkyard. If you look at the new aerial photos and zoom in, you see cars surrounded by, I don't have a better word, junk. You know what I'm saying? The byproducts of the Salvador operation. They're just littered all over the property. Okay. It's a solid waste issue. Uh we're looking into the tires. There's a tire recycling ordinance and there's a tire storage uh law. This tire storage law, you have to comply. The most tires you can keep on the property is 400 and they have to be stored 200 feet from a property line. It's far from what's happening here. Okay. Also, I found one or two other consent orders regarding other salvage yards in Rhode Island. and actually found two. Both of those consent orders state that vehicles can't be stored within 15 feet of the property line. Okay. I'm looking in to try to find out where that came from. If that's something the individual towns put in place or if that's a law that we haven't found yet because we have cars, debris right on the property line. There's no setback here. Um so again, there's a lot more to this. We could go on all night, but I just want you to know we're pursuing all of this. We're doing our work. So again, I'm asking you consider that with your decision tonight.

Thank you. Anybody else? Anyone else?

Tim Colin Hill Road. My big question with the zoning and everything with the uh I can't think of what I'm thinking of the the fines. Leo tells us one thing and you guys something else. So, who do we look for to take care of all of this, the violations? Because, like I said, I had a 45minute conversation with him about the oil that there's no second containment. There's no way to if he's got two drums out there that say oil on it if they're plastic. If one of his non-emp employees drives into it with a forklift, puts a hole in it. Where's all this oil going? He has no way to contain it. You was They were supposed to bring all of this to the meeting. the EPA code, the regulations, the permits. That was all supposed to be here tonight. It we can play it for you because you guys asked for it all. So, you should not give him his license. It makes no sense. I don't want 55 gallons of oil one of his guys drives a forklift through and leaks all the way to our house. You've seen the pictures. We have a pond, a cranberry bog. We have all kinds of stuff. And it's just not right. It really isn't. You shouldn't give him this license. clean it up for us.

Anyone else?

Christopher Zangar for HT Auto. Again, couple issues were raised, more than a couple. Uh, one was the the fence and whether or not the screening was adequate. Uh, the highest amount you're allowed is an 8ft fence. That's as high as you can go. So if you go eight feet and you can see over it, that's as far as you can take the fence. These are the two permits for the fencing. I don't have copies. U but it says it's to fence the remaining property that requires fencing, not all the property, not the entire boundary line, which is consistent with what Mr. Cody testified to. Also there was there was u talk and picture of vernal pools outside just outside the property boundary. It's a dem issue as to whether or not first of all I don't know if that is a vernal pool. Even if it is it's a dem issue that's a wetlands issue for the state not for the town council to turn. There was a lot made about the pre-existing legal non-conforming use and whether or not there was an intensification of that use. Right. The issue of an of an expansion, well, I don't think is presently before this body, there was testimony from your zoning official that in fact the cars were removed from other people's property as of today, not as of yesterday, but as of today. Now, if in fact there is an issue regarding intensification of use, that's a matter for an evidentary hearing in front of somebody that wears a black robe in the Superior Court. That's a court matter. you need an evidentiary finding. Someone makes that determination. That's that's not your charge. And I would submit you can't do that. So if that's something that the town wants to entertain and wants to pursue, there are avenues to do that. And it's in fact the

letter from the attorney that was shown on the screen in fact even references that talking about an enforcement action. That's the same thing I've said. If you think there's been an intensification of use or an expansion or both, the mechanism to address that is in the superior court, not at the licensing level. So, while these other issues may be out there and whether or not your zoning ordinance should be amended or not to include certain requirements for certification, that is something for a different time. That's not before you this evening. Whether or not storm water permit is required, I don't know. But I do know that DEM has been out there. EPA has been out there. Those issues haven't arisen based on those bodies. The frustration that was voiced is understandable. There's these different agencies and they're not necessarily talking to each other. But that's the system and the process we have before us now. So based on that, I believe you're compelled and it's incumbent upon you to review the matter within the scope of your charge and your charter if in fact this is a nuisance as people have seemed to testify that it is. That is a civil matter. That's an enforcement matter. Right? You have a town solicitor, you have a zoning official, you have remedies that are available to you. Revoking the license is not one of them. We would ask you to renew the license. Thank you.

Attorney, I have a question [clears throat] for you. So, the uh zoning issues may not be before us, unfortunately, and obviously the administration will be obviously looking into those, but when we specifically made a stipulation on the last motion that nothing should be received, it should just be cleanup and the fence. So, are you going to tell us that that wasn't Jathan being received on those days. I'm unaware of that. That's the first I'm hearing of it, the first I'm seeing of it. I did I did not ask. Would you like to ask him? I can. Okay.

[clears throat] He tells me he received five engines. Correct. So when we said not to receive anything, he just figured five engines were okay to receive. I don't know what he figured, but he did receive five engines. Okay. So he doesn't deny it. Okay.

But I would I would leave you with this. If in fact the violations have been abated, if in fact the determination of your building and zoning official has weight with you, I would submit to you that is well within your purview and you should renew the license. If you want to pursue other avenues, you have that available to you. You can certainly do that. It also prevents the taking issue of a property right of this applicant. So, I'd ask you to consider that. If you'd like to talk to your solicitor, certainly fine. If you'd like to come back in two weeks, we'll come back. Uh I think you have enough before you to make the decision to renew the license. And again, you always have those remedies at your disposal for enforcement. Thank you.

Anyone have any questions or anyone else want to speak? Again, Stan Zuba 910. Guys, in talking with my attorney, he did tell me that you have limited scope as far as his license goes with ordinances. He said you do have very broad scope when it comes to public safety and health. That you have great liberty at your disposal when it comes to public safety and health regarding his license. And I'd ask you to use that liberty. Now

clarifying question and maybe this is a question for Leo to Mr. Zuba's point. If we do have um the leniency to make decisions on lensure based on public health and safety and I understand that currently there are no DEM and EPA violations, but how do we exercise that right? Especially based on some of the information that we received, no form of second containment for potentially hazardous material on the property. Like what are h how do we better understand the current state of this business in relation to environmental matters that we could then weigh in on from a public safety?

I I would suggest getting u a specialist involved with as far as the fluids issue and all that. um someone who has background in EPA and uh the public safety aspect was the traffic in the street, the unloading in the road after hours and creating traffic problems. That was definitely a public safety issue, but we just saw a video that it was still being done. Terry, do you know the date that that was on your video that they were unloading?

They were unloading the cars that were full of liquids. They were different. They were different um things this this year all throughout. [snorts] So they're still unloading cars in the streets. Yeah. Re reoccurring uh all throughout this year. Yeah. And and for the past four years, that's what they've been doing. The cars are not empty. They ride them a lot. Talk about unloading in the street. Oh, unloading in the street. That's slowed down. That has slowed down. That has slowed down. But we're saying public health and safety. So that's a everything. You can't cut the entry air conditioning machine.

But we but but who who has jurisdiction over that? who would go on the property and say these are the different environmental or these are the different public health and safety measure me measures that need to be understood and in and established and complied with in order to say that this business is operating to ensure public health and safety. Who is the agency that does that? That's the Department of Environmental Management. I'm sorry.

It's the Department of Environmental Management. It's a state agency. Okay. And I believe we and again I wish I could operate in the capacity of every agency. I wish I could operate in the capacity of every official. Unfortunately, we are currently operating only within the capacity of the board of lensure which I think handcuffs us a little bit in in in a legal respect. With all of that being said, we've received a lot of information, not just in these public hearings, but we've received a lot of information over the last three days. Um, I would personally like time to review that information. I personally don't feel as though they've abaded the violations. Um, in accordance with our last two motions, it sounds like fencing has not been completed. The gate has not been completed. Uh, it it we're receiving there's still deliveries that you're receiving even though the motion said no deliveries. You can only abate the violation. So, I have issue with that. Um I don't feel as though from a board of lenture perspective yes there are the two violations but what other regulations need to be complied with from a board of lensure perspective like can like I need an understanding of and I'm sorry and I I took some notes so I I just want to make mention I would like a report back on any additional licensing violations so as the board of lenture we can make comprehensive decisions in our capacity. I would additionally like an understanding of and I understand that we're not operating in the capacity of the zoning board, but I would additionally like an understanding or rather I would request a review of additional zoning violations based on the information that we've received um based on our zoning ordinances. Um, and I would like for those violations, if determined they are in violation, I would like for those violations to be pursued in the appropriate venues. So

whether that's municipal court or whatever other venues to ensure that they're understood and rectified in a timely manner. I don't feel comfortable making a determination tonight to renew or not renew without having all of that information. So I I would like to continue this in the under the current scope current scope the current motion that still stands well I would recommend that it still stands that you are operating only in the capacity of abating only in the capacity of abating and then in the interim I I don't know who makes this request and Leo maybe it's you as the building and zoning official but yes we've received this information that DEM and EPA hasn't identified any violations but it sounds like there's still a lot of gray area as to whether or not this business is in compliance with how how they need to operate to ensure environmental protections. So, I don't know who needs to do that, but I think it needs to be understood and ensured that so our residents can feel comfortable living next door to this sort of business. That's why I reached out to different agencies to try to get this information and I haven't gotten any reports [snorts] that say anything negative.

Well, you [snorts] haven't received reports that say anything negative, but do we know that they're currently operating according to environmental regulations? And again, we cannot operate in the capacity of DEM or the EPA, but I don't feel comfortable issuing a license without having an understanding of all of these the caveats to the business. May I ask a question? Sure. Uh for the solicitor, [clears throat] are we we heard a lot of different things, a lot of different uh accusations, videos, everything. We saw it all. our decision. Can we base our decision on anything other than what was presented to us by the building inspector and the fire marshall?

Yes. To the extent that they relate to those violations as it goes to your license. I don't understand. In other words, to the extent that someone was complaining, let's use the fire marsh for example, that there were cars stacked up in a dangerous manner and people testified consistent with that or in favor of that, that you can use that evidence. But you can't use zoning violations to suspend his license. To answer your question, no. But can we use other license violations, potential license violations that weren't brought up by the building inspector?

No. Because the applicant got is going to be put on notice. They're going to receive written notice from the department and that department sends them written notice that they're moving to revoke their license for the following reasons. the applicant has an opportunity to prepare for that hearing and the hearing is publicized for that purpose. So the answer is no. Not because they haven't been filed yet, but when it's filed, what I'm hearing what I'm hearing from council vice president is she wants to know if there are any licensing violations that have not been filed. Right. That's what I thought I heard.

Yes. and and she wants to have an understanding of other violations and have them pursued in the appropriate form if I understood you correctly. Yes. I don't know if that's right. So I I guess we're on the same page because So we can basically ask for those any licensing violations to be looked further into licensing ones. Yes, you can ask the other ones to be looked into, but don't expect to have a zoning hearing here about pre-existing non-conforming use. That's just not your role. In fact, there's Supreme Court law on that. You can't do that. Okay?

You have to do it, you know, based upon the conditions of your license. And you can add conditions to the license. You can't do it now on the spot. All of a sudden, create a new set of set of regulations because this is a renewal aspect based upon your pre-existing rules. But clearly going forward you can make conditions like your condition of no activity except for abatement was appropriate because you gave the applicant a chance to abate the violations. That's why you said no other activity but abatement because otherwise you were going to obviously have a negative result. Right. What I'm hearing, what I what I heard was, you know, the the fencing is not complete, the gates are not installed, and deliveries in violation of your your temporary thing. Those are the things which we, by the way, the other comments by the public are certainly powerful and important, but nobody has had it. They haven't been charged by any agency. the applicant hasn't been put on notice of those charges or had had an opportunity to defend those charges. This is, you know, I appreciate everybody's point of view, but you have to you're on the right track. You have to limit to your scope. You can't go beyond that because if you do, um, it will be a short-lived decision. You'll vote to revoke today and a superior court judge will reinstate it tomorrow. If you go beyond the scope of your authority, you'll the the your your decision will last a day or two.

Mr. Solicitor is a requirement of the license to have a zoning certificate. It's not in there, but it's not in

it's not not in your code, but you can make it as zoning compliance, a zoning certificate. Um there are three in the file that I seen that uh the three that go back. So there are zoning certificates on the file in file, but you don't determine the scope or whether they violate them or not. That goes to again that the use is there's zoning certificates in the file that authorize this use.

But for this owner, if if the license is for this owner, is this is there a requirement for this owner to get his license to have a zoning certificate is my question. That's not in your requirements. No, that's not in your code. But but you have another section of your code that required zoning certificates to be obtained. Zoning certificates can be obtained by anyone with a $25 check. So then, am I correct? The only things that we require to issue this license are town taxes are paid in full, fire inspection approval, and all fees are paid. And then the Well, then there's the

Rhode Island Department of Business regulations. And no, then there's section 204, which are conditions of a junkyard license, which is the screening. And you know, language in the screening is debatable because it doesn't say, again, we don't need to get into it, but it's I think you've heard a lot of debate tonight. It talks about screening to the satisfaction of the council either by natural objects or by fencing. That's what it says. But doesn't it also talk about the records of the of the goods? Right. The what?

Doesn't it also talk about um obtain um having the records of the cars? But I didn't finish. I didn't that wasn't the only condition, but you're right. It also is a record keeping requirement that's not only required at the state level. They're supposed to be keeping requirements of all vehicles that uh are handled at that location. So if that's a requirement of the license renewal and he doesn't do that, why does he need to be told, hey, you haven't done this, you got an opportunity to remedy that violation? Because nobody's alleged that he hasn't done it or given you any proof on the

but he's had plenty of opportunity to provide it to us and he hasn't. Nobody has alleged that he doesn't have it and come here and testify under oath that or otherwise that he doesn't have it. You can't give him a notice. You can't charge somebody with two violations and give them notice in writing to come to a hearing to prepare for these two charges and then when they show up give them 35 charges. It's not the way it works. I'm just saying it's not the way it works. But I don't but I don't get that. If if we asked them to bring all of his records to this meeting. Yeah. I didn't I didn't know what that what Oh, if you did that, I don't know if that's if you did, then I I missed that. And when they were here,

I miss I missed that point, Councilman. I stand corrected. I I missed that. I thought you meant requiring him to bring that somebody's allegedly doesn't have the records. He didn't have any records that he

I don't know that, Councilwoman. I I don't know what he does or he doesn't have, but there's a lot of information floating around, a lot of allegations, but there's not a very systematic approach. You have a two-page document filed by M. Mr. Cody, that's the charges against this this thing, right? If you take action on that license beyond the scope of either that or issues and testimony related to that, those issues would be inappropriate as a decisionmaking factor, but doesn't mean they're not good, legitimate concerns that need to be addressed in another form or in another application or another violation process. So I just want you I'm not trying to diminish because I think the information is very very powerful actually very powerful presentations by everyone in the case but not scope-wise. That's all I'm saying.

I'm I know I'm not answering the question the way you want. I'm trying to just give you my opinion to try to help you to make sure your decision one way or the other is related to the charges in this case.

Right. Can I ask two questions, please? Sure. So you we just talked about recordkeeping. The council has been provided with a consent order from the department of business regulations that the business is operating under that says they did not have proper recordkeeping. So that has been proven and accepted and signed by the business by the state and it's been provided to the council. They did not have proper record keeping. So that's that's a fact. It's undisputed. It's signed off. It's a condition of their operation right now. And like I said, I provided that to you guys at the very first meeting. Second, and this is a question I'm trying to help the council with here. So, the Department of Big Business Regulation lists, I believe it's either five or seven articles, items, bullet points where they can deny a license. And some of them are as simple as incompetence, untrustworthiness, um a threat to public safety. There I I can I probably have the document with me, but can our council use the same reasons that the Department of Big Business Regulations could deny the license for?

Can, pardon me? Not until they make an ordinance that says they're going to do that. Okay. So they can't just they can't just all of a sudden just like they can't use that DBR consent order that's been decided resolved at the state level. It's not evidence of a violation down here. But it's evidence that they they weren't doing their record keeping back whenever that was three or four months ago. Okay. Yep. But submitted. You know what I'm saying? But I understand. So they can't use the same logic as the state in deciding whether or not to issue a license. They can't the same license. They can use the same logic. Not under this ordinance. Their ordinance doesn't have those conditions. We have to we have to create a new ordinance. Okay. Yeah.

I just wanted to see if we could do that, guys. Thank you. Oh, that Oh, that's that's I agree with that, Mrs. Zuba. We we could create an ordinance if that's your question. I didn't mean to. No, my question was whether or not they could use the state law now. No, they can't. It seems like the state department of business regulation has much broader scope to deny a license at this moment. You're correct, but this council can adopt that same broad scope. [laughter] It would be unfair to the applicant. Yeah.

Um Okay. the public hearing still open so you can I still [snorts] want to know who's going to do the violations cuz he doesn't that's the one question I want to know all these violations he lies so he told me one thing and then you another so who's going to push this Mr. Well, we're going to give it all to the administration. The town administrator is going to work with him. Also, there's going to be That's what I want to know is that because you can't call him. Who do I call to say, "Okay, he's not putting the fence up. Do something." He He's doesn't have secondary containment. Do something.

You can call the administrator and he'll do something because he doesn't. That's what I want to know. If you could try and call the administrator when the next issue I no longer have to deal with building, call the administrator. Absolutely. as I've

as I've always said, you're any constituent is empowered and asked to call me with issues. But one thing I have to be very clear, I am not the zoning officer. I cannot intervene on how the zoning officer carries out his duties under law. Under law. It's no different than a tax assessor. I cannot intervene in that. They're protected under state law. That doesn't mean that I don't work very closely with the zoning officer and if things aren't being addressed, I can talk to the zoning officer and get them addressed, but I can't dictate how he does his job. I can't under law.

But at least you can be a go-to for someone to Absolutely. Absolutely. And quite frankly, the team listens. Guys, one more thing. Could you put up uh page 11 for me, please? Hey, can I ask a clarifying question? Can the board of lensure collectively go out and do an inspection of the property? It's an open meeting. I I would think if you start getting involved in that, you'd have to have a meeting, a public meeting. You'd have to invite the meeting, which means you'd have to have the applicant's request to have a view. So, could you do it? The answer is yes, you could do a view,

but it would have to be a public posted meeting with the applicant's permission to go on his or her property. Whereas the building inspector by state law has a right to go on the property for purposes of inspection. Okay. Does that make sense? Yes, that's good to know. So, so guys again, Stan Zuba 910 Iron Mind Hill Road. Mr. Punj, I have to apologize. I just got a notice that the email I sent you with all of my documents was kicked back and you didn't receive it. So, you got left out yesterday. [laughter]

Sorry about that. So, at the beginning of this, a little while ago, you asked about the health risks associated with the junkyard and and what happened. This is uh a document that accompanies the workbooks and the certification and you know it says human health and environmental risks associated with auto salvage operations are diverse and variable arising from a broad array of physical, chemical and biological hazards. Such hazards include the potential for fire or explosion at improperly managed sites, the transmission of diseases where yard areas serve as vector-breeding habitats, mosquitoes, soil, surface water, and groundwater contamination resulting from the improper management of solid and hazardous waste, including mercury switches and air releases of asbestous fiber, funitive dust, and/or volatile organic compounds. Building upon existing partnerships and incorporating knowledge from recent success within the Rhode Island auto body repair facilities, refinishing underground storage tanks, stage one and two and exterior lead paint removal certification programs now underway as environmental results programs. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management non-regulatory office of the technical and customer assistance OTCA working with the University of Rhode Island Center for Pollution Prevention Environmental Health as a primary partner in the project seeks to advance the EPR concept by applying lessons learned to a currently underregulated EPA priority industrial industry sector auto salvage yards. Okay, you can't say it much more better than that. This is bad stuff happening in my neighborhood by somebody that I don't think understands the hazards of what he's dealing with. Public safety. Okay. There's a lot of things going on here. That kind of sums it up pretty good as far as the hazards you're

dealing with. And like I said, I believe you have broad ranges regarding the license when it comes to public safety. Okay. I solic do you can you weigh in on that? Do we have leeway here when public safety [snorts] and health is a concern when it comes to licensing? They do, but it's going to be based upon evidence of public health and safety, not the perfect example was the fire department's testimony that the cause who created a fire hazard and a health hazard. It has to be evidence of that nature. Okay.

I mean, I all the concerns you're raising are concerns. They need to be investigated. They should be investigated. We were talking about how to get that done. Um, but allegations do not mean that it's happened. So, I agree with you. They need everything you said tonight, everybody said tonight. Very important issues. I think the council takes it very seriously and the administration will. The council never heard any of this before that I know of. Maybe they did. Correct. Yep. So,

but you know, again, looking at the workbook that DEM has provided, a quick read of that shows that this operation from a street view is not in compliance. And again, trying to untangle that web of DEM laws and rules and regulations and finding them, it's giving you a document right there that, like I said, from a street view, you can see this does not comply. Okay. Again, brought up the EPA storm water permit a little while ago. [clears throat] it's required. I would ask you to ask him if he has one. If he's in compliance, he should know about it, should have it, right? There's a lot of things like that. So when it comes to the evidence supporting this, when it comes to the environmental risks and the public safety, I think you should take a little latitude on the evidence and take some of what's just being observed and consider that as, you know, weight in this case, my opinion. Thank you. So, I don't feel compelled to approve this license tonight. I also don't feel comfortable rejecting this license tonight because I'm not fully convinced that we have a grounds to reject the license based on what the solicitor has said. I do think there is a lot of unknowns that need to be um known um which would potentially give us the evidence or the um you know requirements to either comfortably approve this license or comfortably reject this

license. I go back to December 1st, the very first time this came before us and the applicant's attorney requested a um extension and that attorney requested that extension at 1:00 that day. And I, you know, have a hard time when we're talking about a guy's license who should be on his most best behavior ever and he goes and takes products even though we told them don't take products. So, I can't really say I feel comfortable that, you know, they're going to just go along with whatever stipulations we put on them if we do approve this license. So, I would be inclined to

Could I I I actually drafted a motion at some point. Go for it cuz I [laughter] Go for it.

Um, but I'm open to your thoughts on this too to ensure that it's comprehensive. Um, and again, personally, like from a board of lensure perspective, I understand that we are limited within our scope. So, I would like to entertain a motion to extend the existing motion of abatement only to resolve violations for 30 days. And I say 30 days because I feel for residents having to come back every two weeks to prov to to present to us in a public hearing. So I think 30 days under the current scope of the um operations that we've outlined [snorts] um review of with also the understanding that this ne that this cannot necessarily inform whatever the decision is after 30 days in relation to this lensure but I'd also within the 30 days like a review of additional lensure requirements and whether or not he's in compliance and that would need to be pursued like if we do find that he's in violation of any other lensure compliance um requirements rather that needs to be pursued in the appropriate you know processes a review of zoning requirements and compliance and pursue those in the appropriate forum uh review of public health and safety concerns that the residents I mean as Mr. Zuba just outlined what the health the human health and environmental risks are associated with this type of business. Um, so review what those public health and safety concerns are and better understand, you know, what agency needs to be contacted to ensure that they're compliant. And then lastly, and this might need to be a separate motion, um, but I would like to pursue updating our ordinance around this type of business to strengthen and

align with our state regulations so we don't have to do this again. Is that a motion? That was what I drafted. Is everybody comfortable with that as a motion? [clears throat] Yeah, I just had stipulations made. [snorts] It's not closed. She made a motion. Well, I I That was my draft motion. I just had like We're all telling you that we're health.

You have to You have to go up if you're gonna We're all trying to tell you we're afraid that for our health. So right there, we're telling you, we're begging you, you have to not give him his license. You have families, grandchildren, kids. Legally, we cannot revoke his license based on the two violations that were presented legally. That's why we're asking for That's why we're asking to go through this process. Right. It's the how can we find everything that can you got to go back? You can't

how can like the citizens find all of these regulations but you can't you can't but we find them pages and pages and pages. This meeting he was supposed to bring everything is up to date for um contaminants and evident. That's what you guys said. He was supposed to have all the certifications. His lawyer said no problem. We'll have it all. And you said if he didn't have all of that, you were going to revoke his license. Well, we've been presented with DEM and EPA reports saying that he doesn't have any existing months ago. Those are old. This is all new. This is before everything that that happened. We all seen that. And that's why I'm asking for a review of public health and safety concerns.

You guys wrote the ordinance. That's what I don't understand. You wrote the the watershed ordinance. It's been written since 22 because [snorts] we're acting in the capacity of board of lensure and we're very limited in the scope that we can act with it. The business can't even be there. They're in the aquafer. It says it in your ordinance. It cannot exist on groundwater property. Straight black and white big giant bold letters. No salvage yard. So before you get down, what what concerns me is you said we're concerned about our health. What are you concerned about? We got I have seen the blue running down the street going into the manhole in the corner of our driveway. Am I right?

I don't want to deal with that. My well is right there. Their well. I We're telling you we're afraid of our health. So now you guys have to do something because there's five families telling you we're at fear for our health. So you're going to let them go another 30 days. Somebody something's going to happen. I can see it coming a mile away. Like Stan said, the confrontations are ridiculous. I had five guys I was fighting with the other day. I don't have to do that. So now I have to I have to protect myself. It's a whole different ballgame. And I'm begging you not to let him do it. This makes no sense. Who wrote the ordinance? I I didn't personally write it. If I wrote it, it wouldn't look like this. Your signature wouldn't look like this. I can assure you

the issue if we were to revoke the license, and please keep me in [clears throat] check if I speak out of turn. If we were to revoke the license right now, according to the town solicitor, a judge could overturn it tomorrow. The judge wouldn't give it to him. What's going on? Based on the law, based on the law, if we were to revoke the lensure today, given the scope that we can act within, a judge would overturn it tomorrow. Let him do it. So, what I am proposing, what I am proposing is a safeguard for the next 30 days. So, this Mr. Cologne, you have to stop yelling out. But I I almost got in a fight with five guys the other day. Then you need to call the police. We did. It's you don't deal with

But we can't do that here. We have two citations we're looking at. [snorts]

Again, from a personal perspective, I think we all know how we would like to vote tonight. But from a board of lensure perspective, we have a very limited scope. if we want to ensure that we're staying within the scope of our roles and responsibilities and safeguarding our position on this. So, do I want to give them 30 days? No. I'd like to give them three days, but that's not something that's realistic, unfortunately. So, I feel as though our only hand right here is to make a motion to extend this current motion of operating within a very, very, very confined scope. So this business owner can continue to abate the current violations because it sounds like we still need a fence around the whole entire property. That's not going to get done in 2 weeks. So with that being said too, the review of the additional lensure requirements to better understand if they're compliant and then LEO would have to pursue that appropriately according to our law. Review of zoning requirements and compliance, pursue that appropriately according to our law. Review of public health and safety concerns because it sounds like there are many. and understand whether or not this business is in compliant and how that can determine how we proceed. I am not sure and then pursue updating an ordinance to strengthen and align with state regulations. [snorts] Is that within our scope?

It is. Can I ask this guy here a quick question? Is that your father? Yeah. So, can you explain and go up there, please? Can you give us a little more background on this potential altercation with five people? Well, the day they found the delivery, my father was going wherever. Pass the truck and then followed it. Is this going to the junkyard? It is. So then proceeded to park in front of I don't know who's on the road.

He was on the road and then the actual neighbor across the street from the junkyard was like, "Tim, you're in the street. It's dangerous. Park right in my driveway." So we did and then proceeded to have whoever I wasn't there but I did see it from my window because like he said half my house is glass. I can see everything. I watched him. I stood I was like hey you all right? Oh yeah I'm watching. Then three cruisers showed up. They like oh he's threatening them. He's yelling at him. He's sitting in his truck. There's five guys and it's him. He's handicapped. Yeah they approached him. They approached him in the middle of the street. And he's and it's legal in sit.

Yeah. He had permission. He was sitting in the neighbor's driveway. He wasn't in the street. Wasn't bothering anybody, but he just got proof like what you've seen the videos. And that was because the applicant went against our request in delivery. Correct. That you guys said no deliveries. Deliveries are happening. You gave them all the time for the fence. The fence isn't done. All right. We can't have everybody. after. No, but I appreciate. So that's what happened. Thank you. Can we make a condition that [clears throat] if this business operates outside of the motion that it's immediate revocation of lensure,

the building official could bring something before you before 30. Who's going to make that determination? It has to come back before you. So most most cities and towns, the ones that have boards and commissions, you know, they're not like the council that meets every two weeks, somebody comes in with an emergency motion, they come in with an emergency motion that day or the next day. So the answer is the way it would be done is somebody would come in with a anybody has to be your officials. Your people can make complaints. the complaints get filed with you, you know, with the the building.

Had they gone to the building official with the complaint about the delivery of the engines on the 29th or whatever, we would have grounds now to say if assuming assuming because it was so directly related to your condition, the answer is yes. And I so I no I think you you know that evidence is pretty clear. It was admitted by the applicant. That evidence is clear. I don't think you have to have a hearing on that anymore. It was stipulated by the attorney for the applicant. That's a that's a fact. You know that that violation of your condition has been had so that you know I'm just you know that has occurred. Yes.

I I did I'm sorry about that. Uh Leo was well aware of of the fact that they went in there twice with delivering stuff. So So now what does that give us? the authority to do that. He well I mean if we're going to if you're really looking at the things you need to decide on it seems to me there is still an issue of what is the appropriate screening and whether it's been done right

to your satisfaction. So that's one issue and there's this issue of a delivery in violation of your your specific requirement and there's a lot of discussions about health and safety issues but none in all due respect none of it seems to be supported at this point by the agencies in charge of those things. It doesn't mean that it's not there and does it can't be further examined, but there's no evidence from right this moment in front of you from DEM, DVR or any other one saying that this person's in violation of health and safety issues. Police have not filed said anything about health and safety. Fire, you always as a board of licenses rely on police, fire and well, you don't have any environmental, you have building. So, I'm not saying that these aren't important things, but you have to have someone. You got to be verifying them. If you want to accept it based upon their testimony, I guess you could, but I'm not so sure that um in front of a judge, they're going to say that a alleged DM violation by someone that said is going to win when there's no DEM violation, right? And how could you make a decision to revoke someone's license on a DM violation when there's no violation? Not not an alleged violation, a violation determined by DEM.

So I'm I'm just throwing that out. I mean, I just want you to understand that you got to do it based upon the evidence, not based upon allegations. And the public hearing has really taken a much broader examination of a lot of problems here that involve a lot of agencies. And Mr. Zuba presented a book that every he gave a list of a book if he's still in the room. Oh, I'm right here.

But he saw if he went down that list, they weren't all by the same state agencies. All the requirements that supposed to, you know, it's EPA, it's DEM, it's DBR, a whole list of agencies are involved. Um, so you have to decide. If we find that they're out of compliance with those agencies, as the board of lenture, we can't make decisions based on those things, right? Do you have any evidence that they're out of compliance besides them claiming they're out of compliance? No. No. But what I'm saying, we can't make decisions based on um Mr. Solicitor, I put up about the EPA. Yeah. Okay. Now, that's a requirement.

The permit would be the permit would be the property of the salvage operation. So, I'm asking them to produce that. But the council's not in a position to enforce EPA uh requirements. I mean, we I appreciate everything you're saying, Mr. Zuba, and everybody's saying, but you've got to let the council stay within their lane. I understand that, but I'm just saying there's a permit that they could produce to say that we comply. Well, they can, but there's nothing in their requirements that say that they have to have an EPA permit. So, this is all their requirements, but it's a federal construct. It's not in our ordinances, Mr. Zoom.

Okay, I got you. Let me ask you this. Could Could they [clears throat] deny his license based on the fact that the fencing has not been completed? Establish the scope of what that fence needs to be and deny the license at least until that fencing is completed. The man has been there for four years. We're on an extra six weeks here and we're chasing him last minute. Last minute, last minute. I'm not going to tell the council what to do, but that's clearly a violation that they've been litigating here. If they think that's sufficient, they can do that. Thank you.

But if, keep in mind, the way licenses work, when the fence is up, he gets his license back. It's not like you can't deny his light his license for the fence and say you can't get it back till you do these 25 things that were listed by the other young lady. That's not the way it works. Well, what I would ask whatever they deny it for is the reason why when it's fixed, you got to give him his license back. Well, one one thing I would ask is because we're so far out of bounds here on time, they set a time limit and if it's not done within that time limit, then they do not renew his license. Period. That's what we're trying to do. That's what I'm proposing. That's what the motion is. Yeah. Right. I think that's

But I'm saying to deny the license now until that compliance happens or the license is gone when it doesn't. I mean, we've shown documents where the license has been denied before and it's come back. So, it's it's not like the license has to be continuous.

There it seems to be the only leverage we have to get this operation to do anything. That's that's where we're at. still there. Yeah, we're still

Hey guys, that was at least the second physical confrontation, too. I earlier in a council meeting, I told you how my 29-year-old daughter had to go across the street when Mr. Roy was being accosted in his front yard. Okay. Again, by people from the junkyard. So, [sighs]

Brian Hammond, 19 Chester Street. I did have just one question for the town solicitor. If we already have the lawyer from the yard admitting that they haven't followed the conditions that the town council set up for them to keep their license, then why wouldn't default not have them keep their license and they didn't do what they said for it to keep going? Like they we told them not to do something. They did it anyway and we're just we have no recourse for that.

You're asking me to make a decision for the council. They're the ones with the authority. What I'm saying to the council is they should stay in their lane under the state law with regard to their licensing authority. They exercise that that authority as they see fit. If they want to have the gentleman on a 30-day leash, that's their that's their their 30-day period. That's their their right. I'm not going to tell them how to vote. But to clarify, if they wanted to because he didn't comply with it, they would be legally safe. like the a judge couldn't say, "No, you didn't follow what it is." Like, "You didn't follow the law."

Well, if they were going to do something like that, they would have to do it for It's more likely, and we're getting off, we're getting off the beaten path there. It's more likely appropriate for a suspension, not a revocation. When somebody does something and violates when a a liquor license establishment sells alcohol after one o'clock in the morning, they suspend their license. They don't revoke it. So, there's nothing preventing the council from suspending the license until suspending the license. But that but that's not what's pending before the council right now, right? Nobody's What's been pending before the council is a renewal.

Yeah, he technically doesn't have a license now because it wasn't renewed. So he can't suspend something that doesn't exist. So if he doesn't have a license down, can you just not give it one? He does have a license. It's been stayed, but it's been limited and to the to the sole purposes as the council described. I I know we're kind of which you violated. We're kind of covering the same the same ground. The answer is the council's got a lot of discretion here to do what it wants, but please all I only advice is just make sure you do it on the evidence related to the charges. Right? That's my only advice. just do it on the evidence related to the charge. That's all. Thank you.

I I mean I I personally feel as though my motion is the only motion that safeguards us right now to ensure that we're making judgment in relation to the two violations and ensuring that the other issues that were brought to our attention are researched and addressed accordingly. If we revoke the license, then there's a very real possibility that it's just going to get overturned and it's not going to be in favor of the residents. So I think that the stipulations that I outlined are going to safeguard the residents until we have a solid understanding of lensure requirements, compliance, zoning requirements, compliance, public health and health and safety concerns and he could only operate within the current scope of evading the violations. And I don't know if we can make a condition that if we hear that this business is in violation and I don't know how the if it like if they're receiving a delivery and Mr. Cody is notified as soon as possible. When is that information presented to us at the next public hearing? Like

you get asked it to be presented to you sooner, right? But he's going to put the you put he's going to put people on notice that that's what he's doing. I I mean I don't know if it's like immediate termination of lenture if we hear that he's violating our motion but this is the first time we're hearing of it tonight. So I don't like that. Does anybody else have any recommendations on a motion that safeguards us and residents at this time?

No. Just like we had already asked just to uh look into all these issues that we've already just discussed tonight. And obviously we need to redraw up the uh the new ordinance with all the different stipulations. And if we find based on zoning requirements and compliance that they're out of compliance, then that needs to be pursued in municipal court. And it sounds like based on some of the information that was provided tonight that they may not be in zoning compliance. So I somebody needs to look into that and it needs to be pursued appropriately. [snorts] So I think that's my long-winded motion. That's your motion.

My motion is to extend the current existing motion operating within the current scope of abatement only. [snorts] Okay. For 30 in come back in 30 days. So the second meeting in February or first meeting.

What are the expectations at 30 days though? that he has to have completely abaded the violations and that we need to understand if there are additional lensure requirements and whether or not this business is in compliant and if those need to be pursued appropriately. I would like a review of the zoning requirements and compliance and if they're out of compliance those need to be pursued appropriately and then a review of public health and safety concerns and if there are concerns then the appropriate agencies need to be engaged to address them appropriately. Is that is that within our scope? And then we can use that information in 30 days to say yes, you abated these violations. However, now you have other violations for these other lensure requirements.

Right? [snorts] Other if it comes before you for other licensing violations, right? So, just so we're crystal clear, the only licensing violation right now is the feds, right? They're currently not in the gentleman, Mr. Zuber, indicated the fact that they did um and the applicant stipulated that they they received goods. Received goods. So, that's really violation. It's just that it's abaded at this moment.

Okay. So, crystal clear fence is the only violation. So scope of fence installation 100% coverage of the property line of this piece of property. No screening with no to the ordinance, right? Well, doesn't the ordinance say the whole property is lost screening? See, this is this is Can we let the solicitor read it, please?

Yeah, this is a point of again of debate. When we're talking about the ordinance, we're talking about the licensing ordinance so we're clear. It's not a zoning. If it was a zoning ordinance, it wouldn't be a condition before you. Just want to be clear. This is not a zoning condition. This is a licensing condition that it be screened from view by either natural objects or a well- constructed and properly maintained fence at least 6 feet in height acceptable to the town council. Now, there's some other language about regulations promulgated um but they haven't been promulgated yet. But, um there's enough there. Um, so if you're on a piece of property around that junkyard, you cannot see any of the junk.

Well, it doesn't say that, but it says screening councilman. I mean to your It says acceptable to the council. So it it says that now, but you have some You got to be You understand? It says screening. It doesn't say fence. It says screen. I know plenty about screening. I build solar farms, so

I know plenty about screening. So, I guess you're going to have to decide what your expectations are and as a and what your expectations are. Um, if that if you want to be crystal clear, I don't know what your expectations are. You maybe need to establish that, but I don't think you can go beyond the ordinance and say all of a sudden now it's 100% fence when the ordinance doesn't say that. I think that's that's the argument. Well, it says fence or screening.

Screening could be many other things. Okay. And from the slides I showed at the beginning of my presentation, it's clear that the fence provides minimal screening minimal. There have been some arborites planted. He said he's going to plant some more arborites. Problem is you're not accomplishing the goal of screening. So, one way to mitigate this would be to remove all of the vehicles that are in public view to the back of the property. Again, reduce the scope. So, if you can reduce what we're viewing, you can do it. Okay. Screening. We plant big trees all the time. I'm in the tree business. You know, we do stuff like this for airports and stuff like that. It's going to cost a fortune, but it could be done. So, again, it's up to you guys what you want to put at them, but it should be it should be effective.

The council has two choices, right? Before you we got to extend. Yeah, we got to make a motion to extend an hour. Yeah. Uh I would like to make a motion to extend the meeting till 11 p.m. That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Yes. Mr. Christopharo. Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. Punch. I'm going to fly. Yes. Miss. Yes. Oh, that's not bad. So, I I just want to make sure we're starting they're trying to like add things that are not in the ordinance and you can't do that, right? I don't want to add anything to the ordinance.

What it says? It says screening with natural objects or or a fence six feet high or obviously minimum six feet high. Minimum six. So those are your two choices. It's not all of a sudden it's not our choice anything else. It's his choice. Well, that's true to try to appease. No, it says up to the council.

Exactly. Well, it's his choice how he goes about implementing screening, fencing, whatever he wants to do. moving cars further back in the property. That's his business decision. In 30 days, he needs to prove to this council, I've accommodated or I've satisfied your ordinance. That's up to him how he gets there. We're not telling them 8ft fence, arbides, BMS. We're not telling them that. But my concern is that the option that he chooses won't be sufficient for the residents. Any other residents say what sort of screening or fencing that they want on their property line.

It's cut and dry. It's it's it's cut and dry to me. [snorts] It's it's cut and dry to me that he knows what the ordinance says. He knows he needs to try to satisfy the council to get their approval to continue operation of his business. Can we close the public? Can we continue the public hearing on So do you want to do the first is everybody comfortable with 30 days? I mean 30 days

two weeks ago's going to blow up. I'm telling you 30 days is bad. We we we can't keep we got to close the public hearing then because we can't we're never getting anything done if everybody's gonna keep No offense but No, I know. Guys, so when the pre-existing non-conforming junkyard laws in the state back in the 70s were put in place, these junkyards couldn't be located with in a,000 ft of a highway because of view problems. They couldn't be located within 600 ft of a major roadway. They were considering it back then. Just saying. It's all right. Again, it's gotten worse and worse and worse. Okay. No one. No.

I'm No. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Zuba. Okay. I think let's close the public hearing. I'll [snorts] make a motion to close the public hearing. A second. We have a motion to second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Bureagod. Yes. Mr. Christopharo. Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchac? Yes. Miss? [snorts] Yes. So, that leads to our final discussion. Our second item, right? Discussion by council, vote, or other action. I two weeks is fine by me, but do we think is that real? like it's not realistic. Unfortunately, it's not realistic. It's not realistic. And of the other he's got a lot to do on we just threw a lot on there.

Exactly. Exactly. And I really do think that we need to review additional lensure requirements, understand compliance, similarly with zoning and similarly with public health and health and safety concerns. And that's not going to give our administr two weeks is not going to give our administration enough time to complete that. And they have to operate within the current scope which is abatement only. So I'd like a little clarification on that actually because abatement only um does that mean he can't sell? He can't do what? What does abatement only mean? Can't bring stuff in. Can't bring stuff in. But can stuff can he sell to make money?

We said previously that he could sell to make money. That was in our the first motion that we made. But he cannot receive anything. All right. And he has been he has so right. Okay. Was that your motion? That's and then I think we have to pursue the ordinance in a different motion or at another time. So yes, that's my motion. Motion to extend for 30 days abatement only. He can continue to sell but he cannot receive. And then the stipulations that I outlined as far as reviewing lensure requirements, zoning requirements, and review of public health and safety concerns and reporting back from the administration within 30 days. So, do you want to do a date certain of um February 2nd?

Yes. [snorts] And I will be here, baby and all. [laughter] I don't care if I have to strap her to my chest. She's coming. So, February 2nd. Yeah. Yeah. February 2nd. Is that a holiday or no? No. Hopefully, we're not doing this again. [laughter] Hopefully, it's not an indication of Okay. So to certain date of February second. Yes. All right. That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Did we close the public hearing? Yes. Um we have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Bureagod. Yes. Mr. Christopher Faro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchack? Yes.

Miss House? Yes. I'd like to also point out given this the timelines here and given what the administration needs to get done, um I'm fully expecting that I'm going to have to reach outside of town hall to bring in some expertise and that means I'm going to probably be coming back to you and asking for forgiveness on a procurement pro process ratification because if I follow straight procurement regulations here. It's going to be two months before I even get anybody on board. But I I think I need to look at some additional outside zoning expertise as well as uh environmental.

Okay. I'm comfortable with that. Yeah, I support that. I mean, we have to money well spent. Okay. All right. Are you ready? All right. Oh my goodness. All right. I'm just going to wait a minute. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, she's going. We're just gonna We're just going to take a two-minute recess while everyone leaves.

And don't give up the tip. Okay. Good night. All right. New business. Discussion by council vote. Other action on transfer of res reservation reserves department of public works. Mr. Pentagast. Good evening. Uh Ray Pentagast, director of public works.

Okay. Um I'm requesting a reserve transfer. I'm requesting to use $48,000 from the heavy equipment capital reserve line to put into a new line labeled highway vehicle repair and maintenance. Uh the pro the problem I'm having right now is I'm running out of money to fix the trucks. I have three trucks that are down presently. We're in the beginning of our snow season. Uh I'm sitting on an invoice for $33,813 to repair a 2016 Peterbuilt sixheel truck and I have a pending purchase request for $13,526 for repairs to a two 2017 International. Um I've done this in conjunction with the finance director who's not here, but I'm not going to speak for him. he's in agreement of this transfer. Um that'll leave me some money for other repairs that are just constantly coming in. The cost of repairs is just incredible um with the tariffs and and everything that's going on. So that's my request.

Madam President, yes. I'd like to make a motion uh to the finance department to approve the transfer of funds from 2024 Capital Reserve Heavy Equipment DPW to a new line labeled Highway Vehicle Repair and Maintenance in the amount of $48,000. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call. Mr. Burgod. Yes. Mr. Christopharo. Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. Punchack. Yes. Miss House. Yes. Thank you. Discussion by council vote other action on installation of poles by Naragans Electric located at Taylor Drive and Troutbrook Lane. Mr. Pengas, this is uh the customary uh request from Rhode Island Energy to do some work on uh Taylor Drive and Troutbrook. You should have that.

Yeah, you should have that information in front of you. Um I'm requesting this approval so that I can forward this paperwork to the clerk for filing and energy to complete the work. So, is this just an extension to feed like a new house? So, it's all behind the curb or behind the curb line?

I'm actually um up in that area, they have like an easement off the side of the road. So, I don't think any of this work is on the road. It's in the easement. I'll make a motion to approve the um Rhode Island Energy installation of the 100 ft of two 3-in conduit on Taylor Drive, Trout Troutbrook Lane. Second motion is second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Burgod, yes. Mr. Christopher, yes. Mr. Zohara, yes. Mr. Penuk, yes. Miss House, yes. Thank you. Discussion by council vote other action on abatement/supplementals. Miss St. George.

Hi. Hi. Um, so first I have supplementals in the amount of 1,4334.

Okay. Anyone have any questions on the supplementals? So, is this our first ADU in the town? I'm sorry. Is this our first ADU? Oh, no. It's not. Oh, no. have a couple of them. We have one. Me. Oh. Oh, you have one. Yeah. All right. Anyone uh have any questions? Anyone like to make a motion on the supplemental? I'll make a motion to approve the supplemental taxes in the amount of $1,4334.

Second. We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Roll call. Mr. Bureagod? Yes. Mr. Mr. Farro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchack? Yes. Missiles? Yes. Um, then I have abatements in the amount of $5,56841. Anyone have any questions? And I like to make a motion. Madam President, I'd like to make a motion to approve the abatements in the amount of 5,56841.

That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call. Bearagod. Yes. Mr. Christopher Faro. Yes. Mrs. Zohara. Yes. Mr. Punchock. Yes. Miss. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Discussion by council vote or other action on recommendation from sewer commission to allow tractor supply to connect to the sewer system at 934 victory highway. Sewer commission chairman William Dory and uh sewer superintendent Bill Dakota. All right. Thank you.

Finally up here. Yay. Anybody want to run around outside right now? [laughter] Get your second wind. I went and got coffee. So um so first one is the uh tractor supply uh company. They came before us. We had uh right pierce review their program. Uh the design capacity of the station is reported to be uh 1,900 gallons per minute or 2,736,000 gallons per day. Uh based on the observed pump capacity of uh 2,58 gallons per minute, the pump station can accept an additional 1,8 gallons per minute or 1,466,520 gallons per day of sanitary sewer flow. uh the design that they had with the uh the facility and the dog grooming stations. Uh the total estimated uh daily average flow rate for the retail building and pet grooming station would be 650 gallons per day with a peak discharge rate of 1,160 gallons per day. Uh so the proposed retail building at peak discharge of 1,160 gallons per day is uh well within our uh capacity for the Branch River pump station. So it's a dimminous amount uh dimminous impact. Uh totally met all of Wright Pierce's exit stations. Pending any questions? Uh we would uh request your approval of

I just have one question. Is it common practice? So your design is for,900 gallons per minute, but you're actually getting 258 gallons per minute. Is it, you know, standard practice to utilize that discrepancy? Like if if the equipment like what is causing it to give you another 600 gallons per minute, is that something that is going to stand forever or the pumps can only do 1,900? So I I just it seems kind of strange. It's kind of like pushing a car past the red line for too long.

So Bill doto uh superintendent of water and sew on 143 Black Plane Road. So what happens is when they design a pump, they design it with a pump curve, right? So ideal where it's going to go. Wherever the pump's installed, it's going to really determine the outflow. So in other words, um if the if the pump is designed at a specific level of head it's pumping against or pressure, it's going to pump out a certain amount. if it if it's uh put in a different situation where there's not as much pressure against the pump, it's going to pump out more water, but it's still operating within a curve. When you look at a pump curve, it's it's a range, but they give it to you at an ideal number. So, it all depends. It's the same thing like a tank, right? If you if you put a pump in to fill a tank that's 100 feet tall and it's designed to give you 300 gallons a minute, if if that tank's 80 feet, if you're only filling to 80 feet, you're going to pump at a higher rate. It's just it's just not working as hard. But

so it's not a mechanical limitation of the pump saying the pump can only do 1,900 gallons a minute, right? It's designed. It's a it's a pinpoint number and an ideal situation, but on a pump there's always a curve on that pump which can operate. Gotcha. Anyone [clears throat] have any other questions? Yeah. Uh, will anybody be tying in from the from tractor supply up to the like in in the middle? Sewer line's already there, isn't it? No, it's only at the corner, right? No, the sewer line is the sewer line is there. It's it's it's all the way up to where tractor supply is. Yeah, the sewer line is the water line is water line. All right. Okay.

Thanks. I will make a motion to approve the tractor supply uh sewer connection per the um sewer department's request. Second. We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Roll call. Mr. Bureagod. Yes. Mr. Christopharo. Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Mr. Punchack. Yes. Miss House. Yes. Thank you. Oh, you got another one. Um discussion by council vote or other action on recommendation from the water superintendent to allow tractor supply to connect to slersville public water supply at 934 victory highway what's matter no this question applies

via a water line extension tractor supply will be building um bill

uh yeah so we're asking you to accept this tonight um it's it's actually a very good expansion of the water system it's in a great direction there are a couple of uh public water supply public uh privately owned public water wells on that site that will have the ability to connect to it. Um uh so far Dunkin Donuts has certainly shown interest. I can't imagine a few other won't. We haven't really contacted the other people that are that have access to it at that time at this to the extent of this project. Um so it's it's a it's you know it's a very small impact. We're talking about 1160 gallons per day. We we right now we're right now uh our average daily consumption out of Roads Avenue tank is 200,000 gallons. We have the ability to take 400,000 per day um with the ability to go up to a million. All we have to do is uh go and request it. So, um it's really a tiny little speck uh of it's a yeah, it's got almost no impact on our capacity. So,

are they going to pay for connection? [clears throat] They they're going to pay to extend the water main up to their property and also as a this requirement is is that they drop services along the way so we're not constantly tearing up the road, you know, going forward as people want to connect. So services will be put to the sidewalk. Anybody who wants to connect, that'll be on them to connect to the to the curb stop. So when someone connects, does some of that money go back to drop the supply? Um, if the supply is bringing the line down, Yeah.

does anything. [snorts] Well, um, yeah, I um I'll let him uh I'll I'll let him uh speak to that, but what I what I will say is that from the water department standpoint, I would say that that's not really a good practice. First of all, our tie-in fee is about 1,500 bucks, right? It's it's uh there's an application, we've got a meter to put in service, we got a radio that's going to connect to it. Um there's the inspection fee on that. The $1,500, there's not really a lot of room in that. So, it's not our place to I mean, from where I stand, I'd say I say no, we really can't afford it to be honest with you. Um, but you know, whether or not they want to request that, I guess that's up to them.

Good evening. Uh, Sam Alfronti with Soul Engineering, uh, on behalf of the applicant as well as Tractor Supply. Um, I've spoke with Bill countless times. Um that was [clears throat] something I I did ask and I'm glad you you brought it up. He kind of made me aware of previous projects and kind of past um actions that the board's taken. Um that that that hasn't been really something that historically has been done. Um he mentioned a couple recent projects.

Well, what I So we we've seen [clears throat] that happen in the suicide, right? But on the water we haven't. So, we just we got a project right now. It's just nearing completion. The services haven't been dropped, but MST extended the water line as you know. And so, all those services are dropped as they go by. Um, and they don't um to my knowledge on the water side, nobody has ever been reimbursed. I guess that's all I can say. on the suicide because I'm thinking on the gator that time gator

gators is gators is an example where it was allowed that that there's there's uh some situation and I did mention that to Sam um but on the water side I mean on the so we do get tie-in fee is $5,500 on the sewer side but on the water it's like it's it's 1,500 you know and then plus we you know when they tie into the sewer like we're not we're not really putting anything up right we're not we're not putting in. We're not the the meter. We put the meter on the water side on the when you get into the sewer. We're not installing any meters. We're not installing we're not we don't put anything in. That's just a fee to tie in. Okay. The 5500. So,

so I guess building on that, I would like to make the request. If you guys denied that, um that' be your choice. But there we are proposing six connections I believe to um mostly commercial pro or not connections but curb stops curb stops to commercial properties. One being the Dunkin Donuts and and I believe the bank too, right? So there's the Dunkin Donuts Bank and I believe it's there's a smoke shop over there. There's a little commercial strip there about Kland Farms Northfield. They're on the other roof. So I just had a couple of questions. Um, so that's a state road, so they'll be required to pave curb to curb, correct?

Yeah, it'll um Yeah, that's going to be up to DOT is going to make that determination, but I believe what they make them do is full depth restoration and then grind the road and resurface curve to curb. And then so the letter to Sam from you,

Yep. says the developer must cover all permits, fees, and charges associated with the project in each individual house connection. Now, to me, that could be read A, there's no houses over there, but B, it could be read that you're actually connecting to the residents. I just want to make it crystal clear that you're putting in five or six curb stops to businesses. Yeah. Yeah. It's whenever the water line goes whenever the and uh I'll correct the wording on that, but whenever a water line goes in, any potential service gets dropped along the way.

So, I'm glad you said that because that's my next question. There's two intersecting roads that this water line is going to pass. Yes. Are they also going to put gate valves and extend and just deadend them at the beginning of those roads so that at some point there could because that would be a perfect little loop around whatever I can't think of that neighborhood but be a nice little loop around there. You could pick up a lot of houses. Yes, absolutely. So they're putting those Yeah. Y that's all I got. Anyone else have any other questions? Anyone make [clears throat] a motion?

I will make a motion to allow tractor supply to extend the water distribution system as detailed and discussed in the uh water department's um recommendation. That's a motion. Is there a second? That's it. Any uh further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Beragod? Yes. Mr. Christopher Faro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchack? Yes. Miss? Yes. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you.

Discussion by council vote. Other action on recommendation from the sewer commission to purchase a utility truck from whining bidder for the water and sewer department. Sewer Commission Chairman Will Dory and Sewer Superintendent Bill Dakota. You guys are like a duo tonight. I know. Dynamic. We're [laughter] the Bills. The Bills.

Uh Bill Dory, 386 Great Road. Uh so we uh Bill needs a new truck and uh so we had several uh bids submitted. Uh, Bill ended up uh requesting that we approve the actually the lowest bidder. Uh, all three bids did meet his needs. Uh, but the uh Herd Auto Mall is a Rhode Island company and uh it met his needs including the crane uh on the truck to do the work. Um, so we're sewer commission approved and was requesting the town council to approve 102,000. 85% would come out of the sewer budget and 15% from water bill.

I don't know if you have any. Nope. That was perfect. Now, was this in the sewer capital budget or Yes, it will be paid for out of capital. Okay, perfect. The the water and sewer actually the Y. Anyone have any other questions? Anyone like make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the purchase of a new utility truck from Herd Auto Mallal at the cost of $102,000.

Can you just talk about the how it's going to come come out of the sewer? 85% from Yes. And it will be paid for 85% from the sewer department, 15% from water department. And what did you say about the capital capital capital funds? [snorts] That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roaw. Mr. Bureagod. Yes. Mr. Christopher. Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. Punchac. Yes. Miss. Yes.

Discussion by council vote. Other action on recommendation from sewer commission to allow material sampling technologies MST to connect to the sewer system at 800 central street. Sewer commission Bill Dari and sewer superintendent Bill Dakota.

All right. So this is uh MST came to us and they uh presented a plan to expand their current sewer connection. Uh the facility is enlarging. Uh just to be clear because I I've seen some stuff online that is highly inaccurate. Uh this is only water from use from the bathroom facilities. There's going to be no water from the actual new facility going into this discharge. So it's it's just their bathroom water. Uh there seems to be some thoughts about this online which are not accurate. So, they're doing a project and they're proposing a 23,700 foot industrial facility that'll employ 12 employees spread over two daily shifts. We had Wright Pierce review that to see if that would uh fit within the capacity of the exist existing uh facility. Um they predicted the uh average daily and peak daily flow rates for the new development would be about 180 gallons per day and a peak flow rate of uh 792 gallons per day or 0.55 gallons per minute. Um currently there are six residential three-bedroom houses and one industrial facility which is MST uh connected to the force main. um together they're at 53.36 gallons per minute. So based on the observed pump capacity of 258 gallons per minute, this leaves still leaves an additional 58 gallons per minute of capacity at the pump station. Uh so based on this and the peak flow rate of 792 gallons per day, the add existing downstream branch river pump station has the capacity to accommodate the wastewater flows from this new development at MST. And and once again, just to be clear, because I know people are going to ask, this is

just bathroom water and waste water from like the bathrooms. There's none of the engineering stuff that they're doing there going into the sewer system. So, are you really saying that sometimes things that are said online are not true? It's It's amazing. It's amazing, but yes. I mean, I've got some interesting pictures of Maduro and some other stuff going around the internet. I've heard that it's accurate. Not accurate. Okay. But, you know, [laughter] so the other you you mentioned that there were a few other residences. Are they currently hooked up to the sewer as well or they have the option to hook up to sew? So, there are currently six residential [clears throat] three-bedroom houses and and MST connected to the system right now.

Okay. So, it it they were taking into into account everybody who's currently connected. Okay. And the current amount MST is already putting into the system. Okay. And when they looked at would this expansion overwhelm the system and Right. Pierce found that it would not overwhelm the system. I have a question. How can there be such a big discrepancy between the average daily of 180 gallons per day and the peak of 792? It's four times more. What in the world could you do any day to quadruple what they Well, what they do is they they just add a factor in for a margin of error.

Um, it's a big margin. What's that? [laughter] It's like I mean uh but I mean you know it's just like at home it's like you know you Was it that high on the other one? What's that? Was it that high on I I I actually think it was 2.5 that they they added up. So just the engineer what he felt like doing. I think he was trying to exaggerate it to show that. I mean, if you look in there, the odds of every system on that line, that 2 and 12 inch line pumping at the same time, and giving you that 53 gallons per minute, I mean, that's that's really not going to happen. So, by exaggerating that number, it's like he's it's just telling you that you're it's going to be operating with absolutely no problem.

It's a margin of safety. Yeah. So, anyone have any other questions? Anyone like to make a motion? May as well. Go ahead. No. All right. [laughter] Uh, I'd like to make a motion to allow material sampling technologies to connect to the sewer system at 800 Central Street. Second. We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Bureagod? Yes. Mr. Christopher Faro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchack? Yes. Miss Alves? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Discussion by council vote other action on approvement of Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank Community Project Assistance Fund Grant Agreement. Mr. Gibbs. Last but not least,

save the best for last. [laughter] Um yeah, as I had previously reported to the council, uh we had successfully filed a grant request to the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank, uh to do some planning as it relates to flooding issues that we were experiencing on Dolly Brook and that includes a Mechanic Street area. Um we got that grant approved. What you have in front of you is the grant agreement which reflects the scope that we put in our uh funding request. So the resolution, your package effectively would authorize uh myself as the administrator to sign the grant agreement. Um after that signature, we're going to have to go out to RFP. Um we'll go to our in in-house our inind um engineers and ask for cost proposals. fully expected to stay within the 50 $50,000 budget. That's uh we would complete the the the study by u early fall of this year.

Anyone Anyone have any questions? All right. Anyone make a motion to approve the resolution or deny whatever? [laughter] I'll make a motion to approve the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank Community Project Assistance Fund Grant Agreement for 50,000. $50,000. I was looking for the I can't remember the name of the street. Oh, Dolly Brook master plan and to authorize the administrator to sign that agreement

and authorize the administrator to sign. That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Bureagard? Yes. Mr. Mr. Farro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punch? Yes. Miss House? Yes. Uh, last one is open forum pursuant to 42-46-6D maximum 3 minutes per person. Is there anyone who would like to speak in open forum? What? Thank you. Just to make a make a note that there's only one person in the audience and they denied to speak. So going forward, we'll take a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. All in favor say I. I. I.