A license review for Classic Express Ice Cream Cafe will head to a show cause hearing later this month after disputes between the owner/developer and the town over land location and permits.
Town Solicitor Dylan Conley said that the land, located in the area of 1208 Atwood Ave., could sit on a state right of way. He argued during Monday’s Town Council meeting that the town cannot grant permission for a business to set up permanently on state land.
“So while a more common scenario of error would allow for an opportunity to cure, and certainly this applicant can resubmit their application and correctly identify the location of the premises,” Conley said. “The issue I have is the information that the town maintains regarding plat and lot lines, and the location indicates that this is state property.”
The issues didn’t stop there. Building Official Ben Nascenzi previously told the council that he was out because of an injury when an alternate building official issued the building permits, but Nascenzi said they were issued for a different lot.
Nascenzi also said the applicant, Greg Aloisio, was issued a hawker/peddler license, which dictates that food has to be mobile. He argued that the business was becoming a permanent structure, adding that he issued a permit for a large sign to go on the white building.
“The permits are no good,” Nascenzi said. “The permits are erroneously filled out. They’re not for that particular lot, so as far as I’m concerned he’s got no permits for nothing.”
He said that, since he believed there were violations and construction was done to the incorrect building, he rendered the permits “null and void.”
“My official notice states that everything has to be removed,” Nascenzi said. “All construction including the sign must immediately be removed.”
Conley supported Nascenzi’s assertions, saying that applications for electrical and the location’s patio did not apply to the correct portion of land, which he reiterated may belong to the state and not the town. Aloisio said he also looked into the state land issue, and noted the trailer has sat on the same parcel for at least five years without a problem.
Conley continued on to say that there have also been neighborhood complaints, and the town did not possess a copy of the Department of Health license as of Monday night. He said that a show cause hearing would allow the applicant a “full and fair opportunity to be heard.”
“It would be my recommendation at this point in time that the board consider a cease and desist if the applicant can’t give us cause as to why there is no health license at the location,” Conley said. “That’s my greatest concern. My secondary concern is one of the permits that was revoked was electrical, and I imagine the electrical is necessary for the operation of a business at the location.”
Aloisio rebutted that the license from the Department of Health was not pending, but approved. He added that the trailer is not a permanent structure, and said there was “a lot of false information going on at this hearing.”
“I have documents that aren’t with me,” Aloisio said of the health license. “I didn’t bring them with me, I didn’t realize this was even happening. I wasn’t notified. This was all a big surprise to me.”
Conley said that a notice was issued by the Johnston Police Department on May 30, and the date was set previously at the time of Aloisio’s application.
Council President Robert V. Russo inquired about the fencing surrounding the structure, to which Aloisio said it was only temporary. He was also asked about the skirting around the bottom of the trailer, which he said was to give the business a ’70s vibe.
Aloisio added that Nascenzi’s office permitted the sign to sit atop the trailer, but Conley retorted that the signage was allowed for a different lot entirely.
“The location is critical in my eyes,” Conley said. “The town does not have that authority to grant permanent structures on state land. The trailer is one issue, the second issue is the signage and the third issue is the patio. So I don’t know what permanent structures are existing on state property.”
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here