Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press town on Pate Farm soil, testing history and debris; DEM/DOH records cited
Summary
Residents urged the council to pursue testing and cleanup at the Pate Farm property where soil from school demolitions was dumped. Speakers cited prior DOH/DEM reviews, said asbestos abatements at the source schools were completed without error, and asked the town to secure testing and remove dumped tires and debris; council scheduled a June 10 follow-up meeting.
Residents living near the Pate Farm property described long-running concerns about soil deposits, debris and public-safety risks at a June 2 council meeting.
Moren Gerrod, speaking on behalf of neighbors, recounted that soil from two school demolitions — previously subject to asbestos abatements — was moved to the Pate Farm site in 25–30 truckloads. Gerrod said earlier testing connected to school demolitions returned acceptable levels for asbestos, radon, lead and mold, and that both the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and Department of Health (DOH) had been engaged in past years. Gerrod said DEM staff (referred to in the record) stated no solid waste was found during a 2024 visit and that DOH review of asbestos abatement at the school demolitions found no errors, which Gerrod said supported that the transported soil was “clean.”
Despite those records, residents reported that the Pate Farm property now contains loosely piled tires, landscaping debris and construction materials being illegally dumped at night. Speakers described a narrow one-way bridge into the neighborhood and raised concern about emergency access and fire risk if tires ignite. Gerrod said DEM indicated that any soil leaving the Pate parcel must be tested before removal and would need documentation to be accepted at Rhode Island Resource Recovery.
Mayor Lombardi and staff said they visited the property and planned dumpsters and a cleanup; the council scheduled a public meeting for June 10 to discuss next steps with residents. Residents asked the council to ensure any future grants or plans for recreational development account for access constraints, ongoing maintenance limits and the need to involve residents early in planning.
Why it matters: The question combines environmental-health oversight (testing and proof of abatement), public-safety concerns (dumped tires, narrow egress) and town infrastructure decisions about future use of the property. DEM/DOH records indicating that school asbestos abatements were completed without errors are relevant but do not eliminate the need to test soils on site prior to removal or reuse.
Next steps: The council set a follow-up meeting for June 10; DEM/DOH were noted as resources that would require formal invitation to present technical guidance to the council.
