Pawtuxet residents were put on a high fence alert last week following Department of Environmental Management approval to fence in a 15 acre former manufacturing site between the Pawtuxet River and Post Road. The site which has been cleared of buildings is being used for the storage of PVC pipes. Occasionally trucks and heavy equipment are parked on the property owned by Artak Avagyan and Lee Beausoleil whose plans to develop it with rental garages for independent contractors was vehemently opposed by village residents. Fueling the opposition, the partners closed off a foot path along the river, breaking a route that went along both sides of the river.

The city Planning Board approved a development plan last March on condition that the property owners place about 8 acres in a conservation easement, a clause that seemingly would meet the approval of village associations and residents, but it didn’t. The provision was also opposed by the partners and both groups vowed to fight the decision in court.  Avagyan and Beausoleil withdrew petition before it went to court.

But that hasn’t smoothed over things.

“This latest revelation has stunned many in the community,” writes Susan Hartman in an email. She goes on to say the 8-foot fence approved by the DEM is larger than necessary.  A blast email from Pawtuxet Green Revival, a group spawned from the fight to stop development of 175 Post Road went into greater detail of how the fence would impact the village.

It says the fence would prevent access to the walking trail in use since at least 1960 by Warwick and Cranston residents; disturb the wetlands along Post Road; prevent the historical migration of wildlife across Post Road and to the Pawtuxet River (deer, turkeys, rabbits, turtles); a death-trap for deer attempting to cross Post Road and be a visual blight at the entrance to historic Pawtuxet Village.

“The fence makes no sense from a business point of view. If the owners of 175 need to enclose their parking slab which is currently being used to park trucks and cranes, they only need a fence around the developed slab,” reads the email.

It concludes a fence along Post Road is unnecessary and “seems designed to annoy the community, who, as you know, has opposed their plans in the past.”

On Tuesday Mayor Frank Picozzi said the land owners would not need a city permit unless the fence is more than seven feet. He said he talked with Building Inspector Al DeCorte and  for the city to deny a permit for an eight foot fence it would need a defendable reason.

“We can’t just do it because we don’t like it,” he said.

“I wish they weren’t doing it. It’s upset a lot of people,” he said. He added he doesn’t see an avenue for appeal.

Reached by telephone Tuesday, Avagyan said the fact they have a permit for the fence, “doesn’t mean we’re putting up a fence.” He added, “I don’t know why that’s anybody’s business.”

The Beacon reached out to DEM for comment, but did not receive a return call.