Tiverton Residents Against Site-Ready Expansion

Tiverton residents made it clear that they are not in favor of an expansion of the Site-Ready waste management facility on Eagleville Road.


More than a dozen Tiverton residents sounded off against a proposed expansion to a waste management facility on Eagleville Road at Tuesday's Town Council meeting.

Although the Town Council does not have jurisdiction over the approval or denial of the Site-Ready Materials & Recycling Co.'s application for expansion, it dedicated about an hour of Tuesday's meeting to hearing from Tiverton residents, the majority of whom are against the proposal.

"As residents in the town of Tiverton and neighbors to the Site-Ready operation at Eagleville Road, please be advised that we oppose the application before the Planning Board and if approved, it will have a severely detrimental impact to neighbors and the town," said Donna Banville, reading from a letter submitted to the town on behalf of the Eagleville Road residents opposed to the project.

The proposed project calls for a two-phased expansion of the waste management facility. Phase 1 would be the construction of a 25,000-square-foot, 40-foot-tall prefabricated building. Phase 2 would call for an additional building of identical propportions adjacent to the Phase 1 building. 

The new buildings would allow for expanded recycling capabilities, the operation of a transfer station and a single-stream materials recovery facility, according to the project summary. All materials would reportedly be processed indoors.

The expanded operation would allow for the processing of up to 1,500 tons of recyclable materials, construction and demolition debris and municipal solid waste daily. The company estimated an additional 740 trucks would travel to the Eagleville Road site via Fish and Stafford roads daily - 60 to 100 of those between 7 and 8 a.m.

Currently Site-Ready is a facility that serves the general public and wholesalers and provides not only gravel, stone, coarse and fine sand, but wall stone, rip rap, fill, loam, compost, granite curbing, and cobble stones. They are also a DEM compost facility and recycle any organic material such as stumps, brush, and grass clippings. In addition, they also accept concrete, brick, and asphalt and turn those into gravel, according to Tiverton-Little Compton Patch's directory listing.

According to Town Council member David Nelson, the proposed development of the property is expected to bring an additional $15,000 to the property tax rolls.

"Take into consideration our property value losses," said Patricia Pelletier, an Eagleville Road resident. "You estimate an additional $15,000 in tax revenue, but my property taxes will be cut in half."

The site exists within the Stafford Pond watershed overlay district. Earlier in the meeting the council voted unanimously to amend the density calculations for subdivisions within the watershed overlay district. The regulation called for no more than one unit per three acres of land. In the old ordinance developers could count wetlands and unbuildable steep slopes into the equation. The amended ordinance disallows adding this type of unbuildable land into the equation.

According to Planning Board Vice President Stuart Hardy, this amendment was necessary to help combat pollution within the Stafford Pond reservoir. Phosphorus and other rainwater pollutants washing into the pond have been an issue in the pond.

"As someone who helps with the water studies, [Stafford Pond] is at its cleanest now and i can't even tell you what all of the dust and contaminants will do
to the pond," said Brian O'Neill, a Stafford Road resident and representative of the Stafford Pond Improvement Association. "I don't think we can take it. If we do this I think we are taking a huge step back."

Another resident agreed.

"You talked about the watershed like it's the best thing since sliced bread and you're taking about this dump and putting it right on top of it," said Jack Hoover,who lives across the street from the site. "Your taking about people's homes, livelihoods and telling them they have leave three acres between developments. This is not a good thing to put in a watershed area and I imagine we're going to fight like hell against it."

Town Council members refrained from offering their opinions on whether they are for or against the project. They did however argue whether the council meeting was an appropriate forum for discourse since the matter is currently before the Planning Board.

"I have not expressed here at this table tonight any view for or against. This is meant for our public to come up and express their opinions on it," said David Nelson, councilman. "Those remarks would not get the same visibility at the Planning Board as it would here where is will be televised."

Councilman Robert D. Coulter was also in favor of allowing residents to voice their opinions while council members refrained from doing so.

"I disagree that it is an appropriate forum," said Brett N. Pelletier, councilman. "The language we've been batting around is whether we are for or against this, for informational purposes only it is because - at least to some people - an unfavorable proposal to the Planning Board and if we're going to do this as a manor of course, we should do this for every matter before planning board. We are
shedding light because there is controversy. As a Town Council member, I have no opinion of whether I am for or against, or the validity and the qualification of this applicant because I wasn't elected to do that and I think by talking about it one way or another as a Town Council, we have somehow interfered with the process. I'm not comfortable talking about this either way."

Council President Jay J. Lambert and Councilman Edward A. Roderick also expressed concerns with bypassing the Planning Board's jurisdiction.

One resident, Roger Bennis, accepted that it was not the council's duty to interfere in the Planning Board process, but did question how such an expansion could garner approval under the town code.

"If it is at all possible that this development with the number of trucks anticipated in a watershed area and its proximity to residential housing, if it is possible that they may get all the permits, my question to the Town Council is when are you going to change the zoning so that it isn't possible," said Bennis. "You don't do this in a watershed area. Zoning should restrict that. If the zoning is possible, then I think we would all expect the Town Council doing something to change the zoning so that this is not possible."

The Planning Board is scheduled to consider the matter at its Nov. 20 meeting.

Rug Doctor October 10, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Why does Mr. Lambert do everything in his power to not hear from taxpayers about issues. This is not the proper forum or it is not on the agenda. This was on the agenda and Mr. Lambert along with Mr. Roderick and Mr. Pelletier do not want to hear about complaints of this nature or any complaint against the town. Why is this so who are they protecting. They are not protecting the taxpayers because this is how the town gets into expensive lawsuits. Mr. Roderick in a recent ad in the newspaper want people to pay $25 to have pizza with him and talk with him. Why does he not return phone calls and emails about problems in our town? Why did Mr. Lambert hold a half day seminar about zoning and planning and people could not speak about actual problems? This three Lambert, Roderick and Pelletier do not want to hear from voters and taxpayers. I saw Mr. Lambert at one meeting not allow a person to speak during the open topic portion of the meeting. No where on the agenda or anywhere else does it say what the topic has to be about. These three are not very smart less than a month before an election. The problems here sound all too similar to other issues than have been ongoing over the years. How many avoidable expensive lawsuits has the town lost? It is time to vote these three out of office. If taxpayers and voters can speak to their elected officials at a meeting with the item on the agenda then just when can they? In court. Vote them out of office!!!!!
Jim L October 11, 2012 at 01:34 AM
So now we even attack Mr Pellitier, this is before the planning board, which is a legal step that must be followed, that simple, Sorry rug doctor but the town cannot just skip this step of due process will be dinied, I agree with many that it doesn't belong in a watershed but to just zone it out is to return to days of old,
Mikey October 11, 2012 at 02:25 AM
Raise the pitch forks, they are trying to expand business in town again, keep Tiverton green...
Rug Doctor October 11, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Jim you don t get it. This facility is not in compliance now. Why is soils waste from another state being accepted ? Why were violations lifted? Why does the place smell? Why will they not let the code enforcer on the property? Why did this town in the past give things to properties with existing violations?t there are issues on the property now. Some of our council does not care
Jim L October 11, 2012 at 11:46 AM
I get it rug doctor, but it isn't up to the town council to deal directly with this, . It is now before the planning board for review, any health voilations fall under that dept, same with zoning etc, The council must cross the tee's and dot the eyes on this or more lawsuits will followI know Mr Pellitier has been studying zoning laws in this town for awhile and i differ my knowledge to his, I think thats why we elected these folks
oldandtired October 11, 2012 at 12:02 PM
I understand the neighbors are frustrated and just want to feel like someone is listening and taking them seriously, but this is not the way. I happen to agree that this development is a very bad idea, the neighbors have real legitimate concerns, and that the planning board should flat out deny it. But the Council has no control over approval or denial so Mr. Nelson and Mr. Coulter have played upon the emotions of the neighbors to politicize the process (not coincidentally right before an election). Mr. Nelson and Mr. Coulter have turned the Council into a place where people with “friends in high places” can make an issue political. If I know the right people, I can complain about my neighbor or a development, if I know the right people I can get special treatment for my development. If I DON”T know the right people, well tough, I am out of luck. Jim is absolutely correct, due process shouldn’t be denied because of a connection at town hall. Are we now going to use Town Hall as a forum for neighbors to complain about every development. If not, why not? Are some neighbors concerns more import than others? Who gets to decide which issues need to have “the light shined on them”? Mr. Nelson and Mr. Coulter? We have just put up a big sign in Tiverton, “Entering Tiverton: It Is All About Who You Know”
oldandtired October 11, 2012 at 12:05 PM
That is an issue with enforcement, which is the job of the zoning official. If they aren't doing their job, that is an issue for the Town Administrator. Wanting to have a fair and equitable process doens't mean the other councilors don't care.
kyle October 11, 2012 at 05:10 PM
How can you deny the code enforcer access to the property? Should that be an automatic shutdown? What are they hiding?
Gloria Crist October 11, 2012 at 05:43 PM
So....? Mr. Nelson was seen outside the planning board meeting egging people on to attend the meeting-being sure to tell them he is running for re-eclection and then he fails to show at the Town Council meeting? Yep- petty election time politicking. I would bet to say Mr. Nelson could care less about the people on Eagleville Rd...but he sure took time to tell them who to vote for on Nov. 6th. This current TCC/Town Council has got to go-they are the worst possible council for this town.
Tom October 11, 2012 at 07:18 PM
You are correct he was at the meeting, pretending he cares about the people that spoke. Even Pennis knew the issue is for the Planning Board. But heck let the people think you care even though there is nothing you can do about it. Jim L. Disclaimer: this post is full of sarcasm and not to be taken literally.
Rug Doctor October 11, 2012 at 07:44 PM
I see Nelson and Coulter as the good guys here. This property is not in compliance now. This has nothing to do with the planned expansion. Why is trash from a city in another state allowed in our town at an illegal facility? Who are the residents to go to when the code enforcer and the town administrator look the other way? Gloria your nothing more than a partisan hack with no real understanding of this issue. The people who need to leave the council are the same folks who do not want to hear from these residents...Does the town want these people to take the town and the owner of this mess to court? Our town has lost one expensive lawsuit after another.
Tom October 11, 2012 at 07:59 PM
Good choice of words Joe. Phoney is the word I think of when talking about TCC members.
Tom October 11, 2012 at 08:02 PM
If you're saying they held another do nothing council meeting, then I guess it was another successful one. If Nelson and Coulter were serious about this issue it would be discussed in executive session or at the real Council Meeting on Lawton Ave.
Jim L October 11, 2012 at 08:03 PM
Very True Joe, but untill whats happening is settled unknown commenters that cannot be held to their remarks help nothing
Gloria Crist October 11, 2012 at 08:13 PM
In print it stated he was not- so take it from that. There are many who wish I was as "uniformed" as you state....but I am not- and there are those of us who are sick of all the "misinformation" being thrown around by you and other members of the TCC to manipulate and flat out lie to taxpayers. We'll see how concerned the TCC really is for those on Eagleville when this issue is revisited late in November- after the election.
Gloria Crist October 11, 2012 at 08:17 PM
Rug-You don't even have the courage to use your real name. You jug-heads are getting desperate-and we are not going away anytime soon. I am non partisan and I fully support the growth and well being of this entire community-I value our schools and I value the people working hard to make Tiverton whole. I will voice my concerns as long as people are listening-and so far-the only ones who have an issue with my truth are the ones spinning the lies.
Rug Doctor October 11, 2012 at 08:37 PM
If everything is all squared away why will they not allow an inspection? Why are City of Fall River trucks on this property all the time? Why does the place smell so bad? Why were cease and desist orders recinded? Joe where there is some there is fire.
Tom October 11, 2012 at 09:04 PM
What's worse an anonymous poster, or a named poster with illogical, illiterate, rambling posts?
Just Another Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 09:09 PM
Fake Jim L, what a hypocrite. See you at tonight's meeting. It will be fun to see and hear what these TCC characters have to say.
oldandtired October 11, 2012 at 11:33 PM
Rug said "This has nothing to do with the planned expansion. " Then it is clearly an open meetings violation if that is not what it was about. Here is the agenda item. 1. Councilor Nelson – Proposal by Site Ready Materials for Eagleville Road a. Planning Board Notice and Application b. Correspondence From Stone Bridge Fire District Opposing Construction of a Recycling Plant on Eagleville Road
Tea Party Shill October 12, 2012 at 12:05 AM
pssst...Real Jim, it's OK to come out for a little while while your handlers and impersonators are all teabagging.
Warren Earl October 12, 2012 at 08:20 PM
That would be great to get Recycling here, correct! Going green is suppose to be a beneficial thing from my understanding. Espacially to the towns surrounding. I would be sad to loose this bussiness to misunderstandings. Lower our taxes wouldn't that be a nice thing. Lets try not to make it more difficult to improve this world. I'm sure they are going to implement a traffic management plans to improve the road for any additional trucks.
St Nick October 16, 2012 at 02:36 AM
Who's world are you improving??? The surrounding towns???? Where do you pay taxes???....the only thing that will get lowered in Tiverton are property values. Putting a Transfer Station near public drinking water is not improving this world! Recycling is wonderful... Site Ready has the wrong location in the wrong town. Let there be no misunderstandings!!!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »