ABC Metals begins clean-up, starting with fence

By COURTNEY LAMDIN | Staff Writer
mireporter@mac.com

No license, no junkyard, no fence – at least that’s how Gil Rhoades explained why he tore down the fence forming the perimeter of the contested ABC Metals junkyard on Monday, Feb. 22.

“If I don’t have a license, I don’t have to have a fence,” Rhoades said.

Much like the Berlin Wall, the tearing down of Rhoades’ fence represents a new era: in the junkyard’s case, it’s the liquidation phase.

Since November 20, 2009, Rhoades has been under a state Superior Court-ordered injunction to stop accepting scrap metal and junk, but it still allows selling off the scrap that’s onsite.

“My final decision is that liquidation is what I have to do,” Rhoades said, as workers disassembled piles of car parts with a backhoe. “Anything that can go to a market and cover expenses will be gone.”

This does not include Rhoades’ massive pile of tires – those will stay, Rhoades said, “until Hell freezes, I hope.”

Rhoades said he's not going out of business; he will continue to sell radiators and gasoline tanks from the Shirley Avenue site.

Neighbor Lynn Caldwell thinks the missing fence is a public health concern and said Rhoades should have waited to empty the yard before scrapping the fence.

“He’s retaliating,” Caldwell said. “He’s mad he isn’t able to take in more scrap.”

Caldwell pointed to a Vermont law that requires junkyards be screened from public view by fencing, trees or an appropriate alternative.

Asked if ABC Metals neighbors have a legal argument about the junkyard’s fence, Rhoades’ attorney Tom Walsh said they do but, “Whether it’s correct or not, I don’t know.”

“I think the question is if he’s not licensed to operate a junkyard, is the fence required?” Walsh said.

Rhoades tore down portions of the fence because they were rotten and posed a safety risk but has “taken steps to secure access to the site,” Walsh said.

Assistant Attorney General Rob McDougall, who represents the state in its prosecution against Rhoades, said the state’s junkyard fencing law “speaks for itself” and that his office is aware of the dispute and is working with the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to review the replacement fencing.

“When that review is complete, we’ll decide what steps, if any, are appropriate to take,” McDougall said.

Still in question is whether Rhoades, who has operated a junkyard without a license since 2001, is required to play by the rules for licensed yards – or whether it is, as Rhoades said, no license, no junkyard, no fence.

“I’m the one that’s choosing what’s going first,” Rhoades said of his site’s liquidation last Monday. “In this case today, it’s the fence.”

Hearing postponed

In related news, the parties to State v. Rhoades filed a joint motion to extend a trial date from March 1 until May 1.

The motion was filed on February 19, two days after the court-ordered mediation, which was “constructive,” and a potential settlement was identified to include removing the tire pile and permanently ceasing junkyard operations.

It also said the parties anticipate settling Rhoades’ pending appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court for his case against the Town of Milton, whose decision to deny Rhoades a certificate of location approval was upheld by the state Superior Court in October 2009.

Although all parties declined to speak about the mediation’s contents, Rhoades said it was a “failure” and “complete waste of money.” He said he still plans to appeal his case against the Town of Milton to the Vermont Supreme Court because he wants compensation for ruining the business he’s run for more than 40 years.

“I will not go away,” Rhoades said. “The junkyard may be done, but I’m not going to be gone.”

According to the joint motion, the parties will speak to the mediator by phone within the next month to discuss “additional factual investigation.” At press time, that conference had not occurred.