Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Minimum Housing Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell council municipal court and nuisance-lighting complaints left unresolved
Summary
Two West Warwick residents used public comment to describe a long-running dispute with neighbors over outdoor lighting and municipal housing-enforcement actions. They said municipal-court proceedings and town responses left them dissatisfied; town staff advised legal appeal avenues but warned the council could not overturn court actions.
Two West Warwick residents, Guillermo Lugo and Shalena Smith of 24 Meadow Street, addressed the council during public comment to describe a protracted dispute with neighbors over high-lumen outdoor lighting and to say they felt town enforcement and municipal-court procedures had not resolved the problem.
Lugo and Smith said the issue has lasted more than a year and that they had sought help from the building official and the town27s minimum-housing office. They described glare from commercial-style spotlights that they say shine into their home, and they said the municipal-court process — including photographs presented to Judge Assalom — did not allow them to fully present their concerns.
“I feel we were misled from day one,” Lugo said, adding that at municipal court they believed they would be allowed to speak about both sets of violations (their complaint and the neighbor27s) but that the hearing limited their scope. He said the court fined them $500 plus costs and that they remain upset by the outcome.
Town staff and the council explained process limits. The town solicitor and other officials told the speakers the town council appoints the municipal judge and enacts ordinances, but that the municipal court is a separate judicial forum. Staff advised that an appeal to the superior court is the appropriate legal path if the residents wish to challenge a municipal-court ruling; the town cannot provide legal advice or directly overturn a court decision.
Minimum-housing director Charles Davy (name cited by residents) and municipal court Judge Assalom were referenced repeatedly by residents; council members and staff said they could not intervene in the judicial process but offered procedural guidance about appeals. Staff also suggested the residents consult private counsel to determine whether judicial appeal is practicable within statutory timeframes.
The residents said attempts at informal resolution with neighbors had failed and that they feel forced to consider moving. Council members expressed sympathy and encouraged further administrative and legal steps, but no formal council action was taken during public comment.
Separately, other public commenters raised homelessness and winter-weather-sheltering issues; staff and police representatives described outreach efforts and shelter-activation criteria, but those remarks centered on service provision rather than a council directive.
