The battle wages on between the DEM-rejected concrete plant being built next to the Pawtuxet River, in a flood zone, in close proximity to wetlands, here in Cranston, Rhode Island. The concrete plant owners, Cullion and Karleetor, have filed another request for approval with the DEM.
Meanwhile, a higher court judge has said that the Cranston zoning board shouldn’t add a new member just because of this situation, and so the proposed resolution to the problem (a writ by Judge Indeglia ordering that two new members be added to the board and then the board rule again on the building permit) has been stalled. From the Projo:
High court stays board expansion
By Barbara Polichetti
CRANSTON — The state Supreme Court last week put on hold a February Superior Court order requiring the city and the General Assembly to increase the size of the local Zoning Board of Review so it can tackle a controversial proposal to build a concrete-batching plant off Pontiac Avenue.
John O. Mancini, a lawyer for Cullion Concrete Corp., said that in light of the stay, issued Monday, the city and the General Assembly should stop plans to increase the size of the zoning board just just to hear the issue.
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that its stay, stemming from an appeal filed by Cullion Concrete, is in effect until it can review the matter more fully.
A letter from Mancini advising city officials and General Assembly members of the stay sparked a strong reaction from Rep. Charlene Lima, a Cranston Democrat.
“I do not take kindly to threats of intimidation which attempt to prevent me from exercising my constitutionally protected rights as en elected official,� Lima said in a statement late last week.
“Neither I nor the citizens of Cranston will be held hostage to the threats of Cullion Concrete or its attorney.�
With strong backing from City Council President Aram Garabedian and other council members, residents of the Sockanosset Cross Roads area have been fighting the Cullion Concrete Corp.’s application to build the plant on 90 acres of industrial-zoned land on Marine Drive, off Pontiac Avenue.
Citing worries about noise, pollution and other detriments, residents asked the zoning board to hear their appeal of the building permit that was issued for the project in March 2006. The zoning board hit a stumbling block, however, after three of its members recused themselves because of possible conflicts of interest. [full text]
There is a meeting of the Citizens for Responsible Zoning and Development to inform the public further about what is going on. Here are the details:
Reminder: Community meeting of the residents of Cranston to provide the latest updates on our legal fight to stop the Concrete Plant in the Eden Park-Garden City vicinity.
WHERE: Cranston Central Library, Sockanosset Road
DATE: Thursday, March 22, 2007
TIME: 6:30 PM
Kmareka.com 
I understand that there is a stay of the February 12 order to the city council to add two add’l alternates to the Zoning Board of Review. However, and I think this is the more interesting question – why doesn’t the city council proceed on its own? The 2/12 order compells the council to act (which is arguably a dubious legal position on the court’s part) but there is nothing to prevent the council from volitionally continue – and for that matter nothing is preventing the legislature (which to my understand was not a party to Judge Indeglia’s order, other than ancillary to the city council’s action to request the enabling legislation) from passing the enabling legislation and getting on w/ the advertising for and vetting of the new members. As of today, the legislation is still stalled in the House Municipal Affairs Committee and hasn’t been brought to the floor for a vote – and has yet to see the light of day in the Senate. This delay is contrary to the statement’s made by the Mayor’s representatives on March 7 when he surrendered his right to act on the permit – and now claims that he’s bound by the court. This is – to be polite – bootstrapping at best.
We’ve got to face the fact that there’s more here than a couple of dubious court orders.
Really. I never could quite figure out why Laffey just vanished on this issue. I did suspect he’d sold out after his senate run debacle.
And the whole DEM angle–why isn’t that being played up?
No, the fact that this got slipped through the way it did has always seemed suspicious.
The question is, what can be done? Especially if the mayor isn’t really on-board? Which is particularly reprehensible after he flat-out said he’d stop this. Which, given the closeness of the outcome, may have been the deal-sealer for a few people.
If the DEM doesn’t give them a new permit, does that stop the whole thing?