Environmental Affairs - Special Committee — June 9, 2026

Colleagues, you ready?

7 o'clock.

All right, let's do this.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

It is 7 o'clock PM on Tuesday, June 9th, 2026.

I'd like to call to order this special committee meeting of the Environmental Affairs Committee.

Note, this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.

City Council and committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under Quick Links, then Meetings.

I am joined by my colleagues this evening in the New Bedford City Council Chambers.

We have Ward 1 Councilor Leo Choquette, Councilor of Ward 6 and City Council President for 2026 Ryan Pereira, and myself New Bedford City Councilor at Large Ian Abreu and chairman of this committee.

I'll ask Clerk Lawrence— Clerk, is there anything to be read into the record at this time?

There is nothing.

All right, item 1 is now before us.

Item number 1 is a written motion, Councilor Choquette, requesting that the Special Committee on Environmental Affairs meet with Attorney Eric Jake, city solicitor, along with the owner of A1 Asphalt located at 1861 Shawmut Avenue, New Bedford, Mass., and the owner of Pico Stone located at 104 River Road, New Bedford, in order to discuss the status of the trucking shipping agreement related to the transportation of the through the Chalmers Avenue neighborhood behind the New Bedford Airport.

It was referred here on May 12th, 2026.

1A is now before you.

On the, on the question, I need a motion to receive and place on file.

Councilor, motion to receive and place on file, made by Councilor Choquette, seconded by Ryan, Councilor Pereira.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Councilor Choquette.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, um, and thank you for everyone here tonight.

Uh, I just want to stress that this is not any kind of adversarial meeting.

This is more of like a confab.

Like, I just want to get everybody in a room and get the story out of what's going on with, with, you know, the shipping and, and the status of the lease.

And again, thank you to the solicitor for, for coming tonight.

Um, I've just— I've received complaints, and, you know, I, I'm just now learning some of the side of the story, uh, of the, the gentleman here.

So This is— I hope this is productive.

And again, by no means is this an adversarial thing.

We're just trying to get some, uh, discussion going.

I agree with you.

From the chair, I agree with you, Councilor.

Um, let's keep this, uh, tonight— let's keep this non-adversarial, without rumor, conjecture, slander, innuendo.

We all have the First Amendment right to free speech, but let's be respectful and sure, let's, uh, let's do all that good stuff.

The chair would like to recognize Councilor Roy and Vice Chairman.

Councilor at Large has joined us.

Thank you, sir.

So with that being said, uh, Councilor Choquette, this is your motion, but you and I discussed prior there's no really correct rhyme or reason to do this.

But I think we agreed we will let members of the community come up first, would give them 3 minutes apiece.

They could discuss what their concerns are, they could take a seat, and then we could allow the gentleman from, uh, and the representatives of A1 to come up and their legal counsel and discuss some of their concerns and take that in.

Then we can get our legal counsel up and so forth.

Does that work for you, colleagues?

Does that work?

That works.

Does that work, Mr. Slusser?

Oh, okay.

So through you, uh, the Ward 1 councilor, uh, if members of the community would like to come up and speak at the podium about their concerns, yes, come right up.

Yes, sure.

I'd like to recognize we've been joined by Councilor-at-Large Brian Gomes.

Thank you, sir.

All right, sir, uh, your name and address for the record, please.

Uh, my first name is Gregory.

My last name's Sirois, S-I-R-O-I-S. Would you mind just bringing your mic up a little bit, Greg?

Thank you.

Uh, 1930 Shawmut Avenue in New Bedford, Mass.

Um, basically the agreement that I had read and then I saw indicated that Pico Stone was supposed to cease operation of the cleanup of the property at 1861 Shawmut Avenue on 1/24/26, and at that time that property was supposed to cease operation as a contractor's yard.

Yet we have additional contractors that have moved in since then, and Pico Stone is, uh, still moving material out of the property and, um, for a good period amount of time was bringing in other material that they were processing there.

I had met with Ryan Pavail from the solicitor's office relative to this And we had some discussion on it, and I felt that my, uh, my next option was to speak with Councillor Choquette.

I did go to Superior Court, did get a copy of the agreement, and I'm looking for a status on that, whether or not the agreement's been extended.

I understood from Mr. Paveo that if Pico Stone or the owners of the property at 1861 Shawman Avenue had requested an extension, that the city would oppose that.

And that's basically my reason for being here tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

The chair would like to recognize that we have been joined by Councilor-at-Large Naomi Carney.

She is not a member of this committee, but thank you for coming nonetheless.

Appreciate it.

Anyone else from the community in the neighborhood that would wish to speak about this matter, or at least be recorded, uh, in opposition, or any concerns you may have, step right up.

Name and address for the record too, please, sir.

Tom Welch, uh, 1878 Sherman Ave. Tom, what's your last name again?

Welch.

Welch.

Thank you.

My concern is that, um, that this thing goes back to being a aggregate recycling facility.

It kind of morphed into that, A1 Asphalt did.

And, and then he tried to get it legally done, but it was denied by the building department.

And he kept appealing that, and he kept appealing that, and they kept upholding it.

And in the meantime, his lawyer told him he could keep running the place as an aggregate recycling facility for 2 or 3 years.

We were inundated with dust and dirt and traffic and trucks, and it was a horror over there with the— with what was happening.

Uh, he had— he has since passed away, the owner of A1 Asphalt, but he had all the material from all over the state coming into this place.

And there was, there was trucks every 2 minutes.

I took a week of vacation to paint my house, and every 2 minutes there was a giant dump truck coming through there.

In fact, The airport gave him all of the material from the runway expansion, or the runway remodel, or whatever they were doing over there.

It really was a horrible place to be over there with the— we couldn't open our windows.

On a day like this, we couldn't open our windows.

I just, I just hope that, that it just doesn't turn back into, into that.

Uh, uh, you know, it wasn't an allowed use then, and that's why it was denied.

But he kept appealing and appealing, and, and finally the clock ran out on him.

And I think now the environmental people got involved in this thing, and who knows what happened then.

I mean, this thing just kind of Just, I don't know what happened, kind of lost track of it.

But anyhow, that, that's— I appreciate you letting me speak.

Thank you.

I appreciate that, Mr. Welsh.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the neighborhood who wishes to speak on this?

Mr. Saroy, yes sir.

Yeah, you, you didn't use up your entire 3, so you can come back up again for another minute, no problem.

Another minute good for you, Greg?

Okay, we'll run the clock for a minute for you.

Thank you.

So, uh, and, and, uh, just one other question I forgot to mention, sir.

I'm sorry.

Um, during my, uh, my meeting with Mr. Pavel, he indicated that they had tried to sell the property and they couldn't sell the property.

And I was just curious why that may be, and I'll explain why.

Um, if it was because of environmental issues.

I think it's, uh, I think it's appropriate to address and to— and that we should, we should know that as neighbors of the property, if there's an issue with the property that we should be aware of.

Um, and also, uh, the time frame that Mr. Welsh spoke of, I know the, uh, the last environmental study, um, was, uh, was confirmed on 2/27/2009 for that airport project when, uh, when the vehicles, uh, when they moved all that material from there.

And just as a side note, sir, I had spoken to Mark Dakers from DEP, and Mr. Dakers told me that the airport runway asphalt is a different animal, and they would not allow it to be— because of its contamination level, they would not allow it to be recycled on the airport property, and that's why it had to be moved off property to be recycled.

Thank you.

Great timing, Greg.

Thank you.

All right, so, um, Councilor Choquette, uh, who would you like to hear from next?

I mean, There were some concerns and some points raised of a legal matter, which we have our solicitor here.

But there were also some questions asked of the A1 folks, so we could go either way.

It's your motion.

Who would you like to hear from next?

Yeah, I think— thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the best course of action would be to hear from Mr. Matos's attorney.

Okay, so we have Mr. Sean Hurley, their legal representative.

If you want to take the podium, sir.

If you wouldn't mind please providing the committee with your name and address for the record, sir.

Uh, my name is Sean Hurley.

My office at 432 County Street in New Bedford, Massachusetts.

Thank you.

I saw you taking copious notes, so maybe you can address some of the concerns or points that were raised.

Sean, before you begin, are you S-H or S-E?

S-E.

Okay, thank you.

All right, that's what— it's what they tell me.

Go ahead, Sean, you're all set.

Um, I would just like to— so this all stems from sort of a zoning, uh, action that was in court you know, 8 or so years ago.

While that zoning matter was ongoing, Mr. DaCosta passed away.

I represented the estate.

Ms. Matos inherited the property and the business, inherited it all.

The substance of the zoning matter was whether or not the aggregate business was, was grandfathered in or not.

Since Ms. Matos inherited the property, she decided she didn't want to fight that in court anymore.

So they came to an agreement with the city to dismiss the, dismiss the action so long as no new materials were brought into the property.

But they were permitted to sort, crush, and remove the remaining materials on the property for a period of 4 years from the execution of that settlement agreement.

In particular, I will note that as part of that agreement, the town— the city agreed that a contractor's yard is still— is a permitted use, and that's consistent with zoning Industrial B.

So it can be used as a contractor's yard.

So stepping back to the 4-year period, that would have expired a little bit into January.

So PECO, my client, as part of the estate, had to start selling the equipment and the business, all the business assets, to pay debts of the estate and pay off some of the other beneficiaries of the estate.

So Pico Stone stepped in, they bought some of the equipment, and we had an agreement with them where they would remove the remaining materials.

We had an agreement with them.

Um, as of today, they've— I spoke with their attorney this morning, uh, Kevin Medeiros, who couldn't be here tonight.

But according to Kevin, um, as of today, they've, they've removed 40,000 yards of material from the property, and there's approximately only 3,000 left.

Um, so I know it was mentioned that Some— one of the speakers had spoken to the city and they would be, you know, opposed to an extension.

But Kevin asked me to, you know, he, he would like to speak with the town about getting an extension of that just to get what essentially amounts to the last 7% of the aggregate material out of there.

Out of what's left, about 90% of it's already been processed.

So it's just sitting there waiting to get out.

No, to my knowledge, no new material has been brought in recently, anytime recently, you know, although my clients haven't been babysitting the property.

You know, so I don't really know what's left for PECO to do, how those day-to-day activities are any different than it being allowed, being allowed to be used as a contractor's yard.

It's trucks going in and out.

Those same style of trucks could be going in and out if it's a contractor's use, a contractor's yard.

There's— they're only looking for the— I think they— I think Attorney Medeiros had suggested 6 months to get the remaining 3,000 yards of material out, then it ceases to be used as a, as a you know, an aggregate processing yard, and then can only be used for whatever other permitted uses are allowed under the zoning bylaws.

Um, I know some issues of environmental, uh, were brought up.

There was, there was some, uh, there was a matter before conservation at one point because Mr. DaCosta, I think had filled some of the wetlands.

That's been remediated.

No other environmental due diligence has been done at the property.

The property, during the last— I've been representing Ms. Matas since 2018, I believe, and at no point during my representation has the property been listed for sale, offered for sale, or anything to that matter.

So that would just be rumors.

Despite numerous offers unsolicited offers for people to— from people who have wanted to purchase it.

So long story short is there was an agreement that materials were to be— remaining materials were to be removed by January.

That hasn't been done for a variety of factors.

Obviously, PECO processes it and sells it.

There's been slowdowns in the economy and all those types of things.

But a very small amount in in terms of the, the total amount that was there is left to be removed.

And of that amount, most of it is— has already been processed.

Um, so that's just like— that's what we would like to convey to, uh, to this committee.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Um, Councilor Chouquette, anyone from the floor have questions for Attorney Hurley?

Don't go away just yet, sir.

Hold on.

Yep, thank you, Attorney.

So I guess 2 questions would, would come to mind.

Um, Question number one would be, so you're saying roughly 7% of the total is left to remove.

What would be, in your estimate, the amount of time required for that to be removed?

I am not— I am not, nor have I ever been in the aggregate industry, so I can't, you know, confidently answer that.

All I can say is that the, you know, that their counsel, most likely at their request, had suggested 6 months.

I mean, there's, as I mentioned, there's stuff, there's material there that's been processed.

So if they were removed, if there was a market for it, it would be gone.

So I think a lot of it has to do with not time for processing it, but for demand for it, essentially.

Okay, and, um, so once that material is removed, then obviously PECO is not going to be required to drive in there and do anything on the site, right?

I mean, like, the traffic will cease as their traffic for PECO will cease.

Yeah.

Um, yes.

Okay.

Um, and then the last question, and it Maybe Mr. Matos knows this better than you, but what will be the future use at that site?

Is there anything planned?

That's still to be determined.

Fernandez Masonry is currently renting a little bit of it, um, again as a, as a contractor's yard.

They store leftover materials for their, you know, leftover materials from their projects until they require similar, similar materials for another project.

Okay, they have several yards.

This is just kind of like an overflow.

Okay, um, I think I'm almost set, Mr.— Just hang right there.

Thank you, uh, Councillor Choquette.

Mr. Matos, was there anything you'd like to add to that?

Yes, please.

Name and address for the record, Paul.

Go right ahead.

My name is Paul Matos.

I'm Nina's brother.

And I take care of that property for her.

So like he said, he's not in that arrogant, uh, business.

Neither am I.

So I don't know how much time he needs left, but I want you to know he did a fabulous job at what he— at what we agreed, you know, with the city for him to do.

Manny did a fabulous job.

As far as them saying the material coming in or out, I— it's probably my fault.

I should have watched a little better.

I don't know if, if the neighbors say that they're bringing stuff in I've asked Manny numerous times.

He said he's not bringing stuff in.

And so right up till 2 or 3 days ago, I asked him again and he said he's not.

He's almost done.

He's having trouble selling what he's processed, but there's a very small amount left for him to finish and then he's done.

But, and as far as, uh, the stuff coming in from all over the state, that hasn't been since Tony's passed.

I don't know what went on before that.

But, you know, none of that's going on.

Nobody's bringing anything in.

We're trying to get rid of stuff, not bring stuff in.

And that's it.

And I mean, if there's something we can do to help satisfy these people, let us know.

You know what I mean?

I want to have happy neighbors.

So if they could come up with an idea for us, we'll work with them.

Okay.

And that's it.

I mean, I don't want to argue with anybody.

I want everybody to get along nice.

Oh, as do I, sir.

Right, yeah, right.

So, I mean, let's have a conversation.

Let's talk.

Tell us what you want us to do.

Okay.

Paul, could you just give your address for the record?

You gave your name, but not your address.

My address is 8 Birch Street, Acushnet, Mass.

02743.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else for Mr. Matos while he's here, or for his attorney, Mr. Hurley?

Councilor Choquette, and it is allowable.

I spoke to the clerk.

Uh, Mr. Saroy just had a point he wanted— I, I really don't want to get into a back and forth, but there's something you wanted to count, if you don't mind, if that's okay with you.

If you want to go on up, Greg, you just wanted a question.

So absolutely.

Yeah.

So Paul, if you want to just take a seat.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate it.

No, no problem, sir.

Uh, Councillor Choquette, um, just a point.

The, uh, the agreement was made in Superior Court, not in city council chambers.

No offense to the city council.

I think that any extension to that agreement would have to be done at Superior Court.

Um, and just to note that there are other businesses being conducted there.

There's a cold storage business, boats and campers are being stored there.

And also, the agreement did expire on January 24th of, of this year, 4 years after the Superior Court case was settled with that agreement.

And they've already gone over 5 months without any indication or anyone coming to the council to make an appeal that they have, they have an extension, or to Superior Court for that matter.

And I'd just like to make that note, sir, that, uh, this, uh, council, um, and, uh, the, uh, solicitor's office take that into account.

Thank you.

If the matter does, uh, go forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Greg.

I, I would assume Eric Jakes would be next, right on your docket, Councillor?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Could you bring up, uh, Mr.

Solicitor?

Mr. Mr.

Solicitor Jackson.

Mr. Chairman, members of the council, what's your pleasure?

My pleasure, uh, oh, I just had a question.

So again, bringing us up to speed on all this, It appears that there was an agreement, but it has expired.

So would that extension have to be filed in Superior Court?

No, it wouldn't.

No, it's not.

It was not an agreement for judgment.

It was a stipulation of dismissal in which the agreement of the parties was appended to the stipulation of dismissal.

Okay.

So in plain terms for the other individuals.

The case is closed, and there is no judgment to amend.

The agreement can be amended by the parties who were involved, which would be now, I guess, Mr. DaCosta's estate, I assume, acting through Ms. Matos, assuming she's the personal representative.

And the City of New Bedford Planning Board— I'm sorry, Zoning Board of Appeals— who were the defendants in the action brought by Mr. DaCosta in A1.

This matter goes back to 2016, and I have to apologize for some lack of knowledge on my part.

Attorney Craig Espanola, who's no longer with our office, handled the matter in Superior Court.

Uh, there's been references to conversations with Ryan Paveo, my first assistant.

Ryan is out on leave until the end of this month, and so I have not been able to talk to him.

What I did do was I pulled the Superior Court docket, I read the complaint, I read the answer, I read the pre-trial memo, I read the stipulation of dismissal and the agreement.

I have a little bit of knowledge because way back when, when there was the wetlands issue and DEP was involved, I was providing advice to the Airport Commission, and they had to sign off in order for that berm to be done because it was necessary for Mr. DaCosta's contractor to come on to airport land to create remove the fence and do the necessary work to satisfy ConCom and DEP.

So from that idea, I have some sense of what was going on.

But I have read the agreement of the parties, and the agreement clearly states that it was a 4-year agreement.

It's dated— the stip is dated January 22nd, of 2022.

I'm sorry, I say 4 years— January 22nd of 2022.

So it's expired in January of this year.

I can say that no one from PECO or A1 has contacted the city at any time to ask to amend the agreement to allow them to finish up the work.

Okay, uh, I haven't been to the site.

I have no idea what's there nor how much time it would take to clean it up.

Okay, no, you still have the floor, Councillor.

Okay, um, he's up next.

So in your professional opinion as a member of the bar, I would like to know, um, do you believe that the best course of action here would be to have the attorneys for both PECO and A1 propose an extension of some kind or apply for an extension of a specific time period, and that would go in front of the— would it be in front of the ZBA?

What would be proper protocol?

The ZBA would either have to vote to amend the agreement or they would have to give the solicitor's office authority to amend the agreement.

Absent that, we would take an enforcement action against the owner and operator of the real estate because they're in violation of the agreement.

There's a contract between the parties.

They appear to be in violation based upon the evidence that Attorney Hurley gave us this evening.

He's saying there's still material on the property, etc., etc.

I can't tell you what operations are occurring there.

I mean, they can use it as a contractor's yard, which means trucks can come and go.

Yep.

Uh, they're not supposed to bring in any material except for construction work to be done or improvements on the premises itself.

They're not to be operating a retail contractor's yard business under the exact terms of this agreement, and they're certainly not supposed to be crushing anything, correct?

My concern is we have no idea what's there, how long it will take to remove.

Technically, we could go back to PECO, who I assume is profiting from this potentially, and say, get it the heck out of there.

I don't care where you find a place to put it.

Take it somewhere else, but get the heck out of there.

The question is, is that a reasonable response if they're acting in good faith?

And my sole concern about acting in good faith is they didn't come see us.

They're talking to us now because you asked them to appear before the city council as a result of neighbors' complaints.

Okay.

All right, I'm— go ahead, Mr. Chairman.

No, no, I know you have the floor, sir.

Um, well, I know the other— Councilor Pereira, I think.

No, no, don't, don't worry about him.

He's, he's for Danny.

So we've got Eric here now.

So, okay.

Yeah, he's for Danny.

So do you— okay.

Uh, I think I'm, I'm all set at this time.

Thank you, Mr.

Solicitor.

Thank you for coming in tonight.

Thank you, Councilor.

Stay right there, Solicitor Jakes.

Anyone for Solicitor Jakes while he's here?

All right, my friend.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councilor Pereira.

You would like Commissioner Romanowicz.

All right, Danny.

Good evening, Danny.

Good evening.

Have you or someone from your office been able to visit the site recently?

Not recently.

Okay, could we maybe check out what's going on there as far as other uses to make sure they're in compliance with being used as a construction yard?

Yes, sir.

Just to make sure that other, other issues aren't being there, because I, I— my concern, as Solicitor Jakes pointed out, was— would be to say, hey, look, get the remaining aggregate material crushed or uncrushed out of there but they're obviously allowed to still use the property for approved uses in that zone, which I believe was IB.

Yes.

So if we heard maybe some boat storage or some leftover material, like construction material, finished product, like from Fernandez Masonry, etc., seems like it's an acceptable use in a construction yard.

Just wanted to confirm that with your department.

Yeah, as long as Fernandez gets a permit to be there.

There's no permits from Fernandez at the present time.

Okay, to store stuff they need a permit is what you're saying?

It's a different use of, of, um, the land and what the court allowed.

Okay, say that again, I'm sorry.

The court allowed them to get rid of the, the debris that's inside there on 4 years And it was January of this year, right?

Okay, we still have some debris there.

We don't know what we're going to do with it, but I don't know what Fernandez is doing on the property.

The property was— it was never brought to our attention except when we got the complaints that Fernandez was coming in and out of there.

But now that you're saying that they're storing stuff, they don't have a permit to store anything there.

Equipment or, or any type of gravel.

Okay, but so, but I think, I mean, with the zoning, my, my main concern is all the aggregate.

Yeah.

And I understand that they're under court order, uh, from what I just learned tonight, was with further stipulations than the current zoning bylaws.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, so What, what my, my, I guess my opinion would be to figure out what's going on there.

As long as they're not in violation of the zoning, they should seek to pull permits for the storage of everything else, in my opinion, immediately.

And then on the other hand, uh, uh, Solicitor Jake's, uh, to Solicitor Jake's point about the aggregate, crushed or uncrushed, should just be removed at this point.

So, uh, at some point, if you could just get a report to the council about what's currently on the site.

So are we going to have permission to go to the site?

Okay.

All right.

Okay, Mr. Matos, if, uh, yeah, if we could, you know, just put the microphone— so it just, uh, Councilor Perry, would you mind just repeating what that next Monday, he— it's his day off, and he would like to meet Danny and the Ward 1 Council there, just kind of take him on a walk of the property.

We just have to get that for the record, okay, Mr. Matto, so people know.

Thank you.

Well, we'll figure this out.

Yeah, we'll work on that, work the time out.

All right.

Yeah.

All right, so that time he'll be there.

Perfect.

Good.

Okay, thank you, Danny.

You're welcome.

You're all set, Councilor.

Anyone for the commissioner while he's up here at the podium?

All right, Danny, you can take a seat.

I believe, Mr. Hurley, you wanted to make a point.

All right, to the podium, please.

Thank you.

I just want to make a quick point because I think there might have been a little— maybe I'm wrong in my assumption, but I think there was a little confusion between between Fernandez and Pico.

Um, the agreement explicitly states, and the zoning bylaws also state it, that can be used as a contractor's yard, which is what Fernandez is using it for.

Pico is involved in the aggregate and cleaning up the aggregate, right?

Um, that Fernandez has nothing to do with aggregate or, or any non-permitted use on the property.

So I just wanted to make that clear.

Thank you.

That's right.

All right, Council.

Yes, Mr. Matos, please, by all means.

The only— so the only thing Fernandez is doing there is they're storing some of their material and a few of their trucks.

They're not doing anything else there, right?

That's all they're doing.

Yeah.

And that's it.

That's all.

That's what I figured.

Yeah.

Uh, colleagues, I was just handed from our solicitor the stipulations that was enacted by the court, um, as regards this matter on January 24th, 2022.

Uh, can I have the motion to receive and place this on file for the record?

Motion to receive and place on file.

Second.

Made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Choquette.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Colleagues, any other questions for any of the invited guests that are here from the community, from A1, from our building commissioner, from our solicitor?

Any questions, any points to be made?

I just— yeah, who is that?

Uh, Chair Wagner, is Councilor Pereira?

Thank you.

I think at this point, the council— this councilor needs a lot more information, um, more, more, uh, information, um, The, the property manager has, has made it apparent he's available to meet.

I would like to hear, get a report back on how that goes.

In the meantime too, I have some further questions for Solicitor Jakes that I'd like to put in writing and submit to him and, and get some information from Solicitor Jakes at that time.

Yes, Councilor, I agree.

I believe a motion to table would be appropriate when ready, uh, as long as— but before we do that, any other questions for anyone that's here?

Mr. Welsh, you wanted to make a point?

One of the big problems is that the trucks come out of that on a, on a wet, rainy day that's been raining, and they come out with the the mud in their tires.

And as they drive down the street, they're like bricks that lay in the road.

And the next day, the sun bakes them, and then everybody's driving over them, and the dust on a windy day is blowing right into the houses, or right into my house anyway.

So that's a, that's a big problem.

So That's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

For anyone here in the community or in the audience?

All right, the chair recognizes Councilor Choquette.

I'd like to make a motion to table.

Motion to table made by Councilor Choquette.

Second.

Seconded by Councilor Pereira.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

So everyone in the audience here in the chamber We have tabled the item tonight.

We're going to bring this back sometime after budget.

Okay, we'll bring this back.

In the meantime, hopefully Mr. Matos, the commissioner, Mr. Choquette, and members of the community will get together and we'll find sort of a middle ground and we'll all be happy and we'll have something to report back at that point.

Sounds good.

Excellent.

Okay, at this time the chairman will entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn made by Councilor Roy, seconded by Councilor Choquette.

Anyone on the question of adjournment?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 7:36 PM.

Have a great evening, everyone.