7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
June 2008 Special Spano Planning Board minutes
June 19, 2008
The Special meeting of the Planning Board of the Town of Van Buren, held at the Town building, 7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, New York, was called to order at 7:00p.m.
Those present joined in the Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.
Roll Call: Harold Crandon present
James Virginia present
James Ruddock present
Eric Knapp absent
Fred Thomas present
Norma Goodman present
Anthony Geiss, Chairman present
Also present: Brad Hunt, Attorney
Jim Billings, Town Engineer
Dave Pringle, Code Enforcement Officer
Rebecca Koegel, Deputy Town Clerk
SPANO, INC - ZONE CHANGE - SEQR REVIEW
Van Buren Rd Tax Map Parcel Id# 055-08-18 IND Overlay
Mr. Mike Fogel, Mr. Paul Sharlo, Mr. Rudy Zona, Mr. Spano and Mr. Garrett were present to address the Board.
The Planning Board reviewed Spano's full Environmental Assessment Form.
Mr. Geiss said in Part 1 it says total acreage of project area on page 3 of 21; the applicant has 20 plus acres noted but at the back of the document on page 5 the applicant has 42 plus acres total contiguous acres owned or controlled by project sponsor.
Mr. Geiss asked the difference between those numbers.
Mr. Fogel said the entirety of the property is made up of 42 plus acres and originally when they first presented the project they were only going to rezone approximately 20 acres of the 42 acre site. After discussions with this Board they agreed to seek a rezoning of the entire 42 acre parcel but still just limiting the actual project to approximately 20 or so acres with the remainder of the property being setbacks and buffer areas.
Mr. Geiss asked if it should state 20 plus or 42 acres.
Mr. Billings said that they are describing the project as the 20 acre portion of the 42 acre site and he thinks that is consistent and if the Board looks at page 5 he thinks it does say that the total acreage is 42 but the project acreage to be developed is 20 plus or minus acres.
Mr. Geiss asked how big the actual site is.
Mr. Zona said because they haven't developed any site plans for the project yet they do not know the limits of disturbance but he would say that it would be less than 20 acres because they will not have to use that whole 20 acres. It will be limited to probably an area roughly the size of what has been excavated for gravel from the previous use of the property.
Mr. Geiss said that he had seven acres but he doesn't know where he got that number from.
Mr. Zona said by the time they do their detention basin, setbacks, grading and all that other stuff he is not sure exactly what it will be but they will have that during site plan but it would be probably something within that range.
Mr. Geiss asked if there was any problem with the 76ft height of the structure for this zone.
Mr. Pringle said the Town regulations allow the Board to set all site dimensions such as setbacks, structure heights and all dimensions of the project are set as an INP.
Mr. Geiss said on page 6 the applicant has stated that the project will take 3 months to complete and asked if that was from start to finish of the project.
Mr. Zona said that he won't speak for the asphalt plant but for site prep, to build the basin, add a couple of pads of concrete for their hot mix facility to be delivered and set up, he would think that is more than enough time.
Mr. Geiss said that houses take much longer than that and he thought the equipment would take that long to get set up and this assumes that they are not going to start until equipment is ordered.
Mr. Zona said the client would probably not want to start paying for a SPEDS visit and open up the ground until he knows something is being delivered.
Ms. Goodman said on page 6, item 16 it asks if the project will generate solid waste; will there be no waste at all, no shavings or anything from the making of the product.
Mr. Fogel said all of the aggregate that is on the site will be used to create the hot mix asphalt.
Ms. Goodman asked if it will all go on a truck and nothing comes back and there will be no piles of the aggregate around.
Mr. Fogel said that is correct but there will be used material that's being stockpiled to be used in the production of the hot mix asphalt but there won't be any waste sitting around.
Mr. Virginia said that he has a question on page 6 number 12 - surface liquid waste disposal and the applicant indicated no. Earlier when they were in on the information stage release agents were talked about being sprayed on the truck so the hot asphalt mix could come out of the trucks readily and the applicant talked about that running on to the ground. There are no detention basins to catch that and he hasn't seen any material safety sheets on the chemical that they are going to be spraying and what that chemical compound is made up of or anything like that. Is the chemical hazardous or is it biodegradable.
Mr. Fogel said he thinks that they addressed this in a previous submittal back in February and they did address some of the concerns that were raised about the asphalt release agent at that time and some of the negative perception about asphalt release agents was historically diesel fuel was used.
Mr. Virginia said he is not concerned about what was used historically; he is concerned about what they are going to be spraying on the trucks at the site and what is running off on the ground and how that is going to dissipate and if it is a hazardous chemical according to the material safety data sheet and he hasn't seen that so if they have that he would be interested in seeing that sheet.
Mr. Bill Garrett said the products that are used are totally biodegradable so that product that is put on the beds of the trucks that the Board is familiar with most of it stays on the bed of the truck but if it does fall off it is a totally biodegradable product and they can provide a material data sheet.
Mr. Fogel said NYS DOT has a list of approved asphalt release agents that are also biodegradable and they can provide that list as well and there will also be a basin that will collect any run off.
Mr. Zona said as part of their SPEDS permit for general construction they will be providing a storm water basin to treat storm water run off and anything else that leaves the site and that will meet DEC regulations.
Mr. Virginia said the Board doesn't want something hazardous going into the detention basin.
Mr. Geiss said the basin doesn't have an outlet and they are looking at ground penetration for anything that goes into it.
Mr. Zona said at this point they don't know what it will be; whether it will be a wet pond or a dry pond or an infiltration basin but he would prefer infiltration based where they would use percolation to treat the water prior to when it leaves but sometimes the soils don't dictate that. They really have not investigated that in any depth yet but they will provide the Board with detailed drawings.
Mr. Ruddock asked about question 11 on page 10 regarding community services such as fire protection.
Mr. Fogel said there will be a demand for community provided services for whatever reason that police or fire might respond to the site but it would be a few rare instances and existing police and fire force will have sufficient capacity to satisfy any demands that are created by the project.
Ms. Goodman asked how those demands are determined and what the history on anything like that is.
Mr. Fogel said if there was any sort of event that would require fire to come or if someone breaks into the site someone might call the police to investigate it.
Mr. Crandon asked about question 12 on page 10 and said that he is assuming that the traffic study that Mr. Billings commented on verifies their answer on that question.
Mr. Fogel said generally the traffic study determined that even based upon a worst case scenario of maximum capacity of the site and maximum trucks that could be generated that the levels of service wouldn't be impacted or wouldn't change and Mr. Zona will talk about that more in part 2.
Mr. Thomas said on page 4 question 12 unique landforms - that area is a drumlin. Just for the record that whole area through there is a drumlin and that is unique to the Town of Van Buren.
Mr. Thomas discussed other parts of the Town that are drumlins.
EAF PART 2
Question 1 - Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
Mr. Geiss said he thinks this is yes because there is a definite physical change in the project site because they have a gravel bed and he sees this as a small to moderate impact and he thinks that it can be mitigated with proper landscaping and other things.
Mr. Billings said he would agree that it is a small to moderate impact and he doesn't think it meets any of the thresholds for a potentially large impact.
Mr. Hunt stated on the small to moderate impacts the Board doesn't need to answer the "can it be mitigated" question because that question is for potential large impacts and it means can it be mitigated from a potentially large impact to a small or moderate impact.
The Board agreed that the answer for number 1 would be yes with a small to moderate impact.
Question 2 - Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site?
Mr. Fogel said it is already previously disturbed so he doesn't think there will be any impact that hasn't already occurred.
Mr. Geiss said he thinks there will be no future impacts to the site.
Mr. Billings said it might be wise to note that it is previously disturbed and it was discussed by the Board.
Question 3 - Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
Mr. Geiss said he believes the answer is no because there is no body of water.
Mr. Billings said there are no State wetlands in the project area.
Question 4 - Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?
Mr. Geiss said he believes the answer to that is no as well.
Mr. Billings said he is not aware of any ponds or anything of that nature and he doesn't believe that there are.
Question 5 - Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
Mr. Billings said he would suggest the answer would be yes and they are going to mitigate and he thinks the Board should talk about the storm water and surface water, groundwater he's not sure of because he doesn't know if they have gotten that far into the design yet but he doesn't think there are any groundwater issues up there. Certainly surface water will be impacted.
Mr. Geiss said there is an item under the examples, the fourth example from the bottom that asks if the proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater that 1,100 gallons.
Mr. Geiss asked the volume that they would be storing.
Mr. Fogel said 20,000 gallons and he guesses this would fall under a potentially large impact but it will be mitigated because all storage on petroleum products in NYS in excess of 1,100 gallons has to comply with DEC's petroleum storage regulations which require secondary containment, regular inspections and record keeping that has to be made available to DEC. In the event that there is a potential for any spills they would have to be reported to DEC within a very short time frame and there is also going to be a SPCC plan in place to respond to any potential spills so he thinks while this is a potential large impact that the impact will be mitigated by project controls at the site.
Mr. Geiss said there is a potential large impact but it will be mitigated through DEC regulations.
Mr. Billings said it will also be mitigated by onsite storage and whatever protection that they are planning.
Mr. Fogel said that they are going to incorporate an SPCC plan which is a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan and that basically sets the parameters by which the site will respond in the event that there are any spills and they will also be required to register the tanks with DEC under petroleum bulk storage regulations and there will also be a secondary containment to prevent any spills.
Mr. Geiss asked if the proposed action will adversely affect the groundwater.
Mr. Virginia said he had this down as a small to moderate impact but he noted that he would be interested in having an MSD sheet because he is sure they are going to contain that but he wanted to make sure the chemicals are ok to go into that retention basin.
Mr. Billings said he thinks the word adversely is the key in this one and in his opinion the answer is probably no.
Mr. Geiss said the question he raised on that is because he hasn't seen the groundwater containment area and if it is gravel and it is not a impervious liner there is no water available up in that area or in the vicinity of there and therefore they have to ensure that if it is going into the ground than it has to ensure that the water table is maintained and the quality of the water table is maintained.
Mr. Zona said based on the topography up there he would anticipate that their basin will be bermed as opposed to excavated in other words they would put a berm up and contain the water within the berm if they can get it to infiltrate. There is an infiltration system design that is in that storm water management handbook that is put out by the State and they would have to design according to those guidelines if they were going to infiltrate water into the soil, if not they would create a pond and it would sit there like a wetland pond and based on the soils that are up there since it is a gravel bed that it would have good percolation. So if they couldn't do infiltration they would have to do something and if they did have a lined area it wouldn't be able to penetrate the ground water.
Mr. Billings said DEC is going to have to review their drawings and approve them prior to issuing a permit.
Mr. Zona said they need a permit but it's not a 60 day review for DEC but this does lie within the Town's MS4.
Mr. Geiss said design has to be done such that nothing enters the ground water.
Mr. Zona said they still need a DEC permit for construction activity and his point in saying that it would be bermed would be that they want to keep as much separation between the bottom of the basin and the groundwater table otherwise they change the type of basin that they are designing.
Mr. Geiss said with today's chemicals if they are going to do any infiltration when it gets to the ground water especially with petroleum products of any kind travel on top of the ground water and in this case there are wells in the vicinity of here.
Mr. Zona said he believes DEC's storm water management handbook specifically tells them what the separation needs to be and what kind of percolation rates that they need.
Mr. Geiss asked if there was going to be a separation between site water drainage versus the items that were mentioned by Mr. Virginia earlier. Is there containment for those chemicals?
Mr. Zona said according to the material data sheet that they are going to get would be that those chemicals would have no noticeable affect on any water source whether it be ground water, storm water, or anything else if they are biodegradable.
Mr. Virginia asked if there is anything in a liquid state that could potentially spill.
Mr. Fogel said only fuel oil and they are going to have to register that tank with the DEC and perform regular inspections.
Mr. Virginia asked if that requires ground water monitoring.
Mr. Fogel said that he doesn't think that it does.
Mr. Geiss said they have to provide double containment and analyze between the containment.
Mr. Fogel said part of the monthly inspection involves leak detection.
Mr. Geiss asked about the spraying of the trucks with other chemicals and are those chemicals going to be contained and the answer he is hearing is that the chemicals are going to the storm water.
Mr. Zona said the chemicals are not hazardous.
Mr. Fogel said the starting point is whether those chemicals are toxic and hazardous and they will get the Board a list to be able to demonstrate that they are not.
Mr. Geiss said there is a potential large impact but it can be mitigated by analyzing MSDS sheets and also the storm water drainage design. There are some items there that need further discussion.
Mr. Geiss asked if a discharge permit is required for this.
Mr. Fogel said they are going to need a SPDES permit from DEC for construction activity and once operations start they are going to get coverage under DEC's SPDES multi-sector permit for industrial activity.
Mr. Billings said he would suggest the answer is yes and check the first column for small to moderate because it is a regulatory issue.
Mr. Geiss went through the examples under question 5 and found that the 9th bullet down which asks if the proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons to be a potentially large impact that can be mitigated by DEC regulations and the SPCC plan.
Mr. Geiss stated that he added at the bottom of the page that they will have chemicals that are being applied that are biodegradable so there will be a potential large impact but will be mitigated through their MSDS submittals and storm water design.
Question 6 - Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?
Mr. Billings said he suggests yes with mitigation through detention.
Mr. Fogel said mitigation can be done through detention and SPEDS permit and SWPP permits.
The Board decided that this will be a small to moderate impact with mitigation being the detention basin.
Question 7 - Will proposed action affect air quality?
Mr. Geiss said the applicant stated yes and that it would be onsite but how is this going to be mitigated onsite to where it will never be off site.
Mr. Fogel said this is the same question as odor on question 17 which states will there be objectionable noise or vibration as a result of the action.
Mr. Geiss said that they can wait for the explanation when the Board gets to question 17.
Mr. Billings said that he thinks this meets the last bullet under question 7 because it is an increase in the density of industrial development but whether that is anything other than a small impact, he doesn't know.
Mr. Hunt asked if there is a DEC permit and what is the nature of the permit for air quality.
Mr. Fogel said they will be acquiring a DEC State air facility permit that sets limits on emissions at the site for total emissions and a few different types of emission sources so they will have to comply with that permit which is monitored by DEC and the DEC can come to the site and perform inspections.
Mr. Ruddock asked what would be affecting the air quality, dust from the crusher or is something else going to be monitored.
Mr. Fogel said there will be a new creation of new air emission sources and that is why they answered that question yes but all the emissions will be controlled by their DEC permit.
Mr. Garrett said most of that is a particulate emission which is a dust from the aggregates and that is why the mitigation equipment is there to contain that and actually put that back into the process and they don't want to lose that because it's part of what they use to make the hot mix with so that will be captured and added via the bag house and the bag house will capture that and bring that back into the hot mix process so it is part of the fines that go in to make the material.
Mr. Ruddock asked if this was an open crusher and if this material was being crushed in a containment structure so they are able to collect the matter.
Mr. Garrett said he was talking about the hot mix production facility and that is where there will be piles of aggregate that will be picked up and put into the mixing process which will mix the liquid asphalt with the stone and that will go up into the storage silo and be put into the truck so anything within the drying process of that stone because they have an air system there to keep the whole area clean will be filtered through the bag filter/collector and anything caught there will come back into the mix because it is all part of the initial ingredient so they will have stockpiles here that will be fed into that.
Mr. Ruddock said the process to make asphalt is hydrocarbons that are going to be recaptured but what is happening to the stone dust from the process that crushes the rock.
Mr. Zona said to give the Board a visual reference the rock crusher is like a tree shredder and they put the bigger stone in one end and it crushes it up and sends it up a belt so they can put it into different piles depending on what size they are crushing it to and there is a water system on it to keep the dust out.
Mr. Ruddock said so the water system captured it and it's not going into the air but where is the water system taking that particulate matter.
Mr. Zona said there is a conveyor belt on two wheels which directs it to the pile of stone. Making asphalt concrete takes different gradations of stone so they will need to have different piles of different sizes so they know how much of each that they are putting in to grade the asphalt correctly so they will have some bigger stones, some smaller stones and some dust depending a what size they need. If they are making the small stuff then they turn the water on and use the water system and send it to one pile and it gets stockpiled on the site for input into the hot mix facility.
Mr. Ruddock asked what happens to the water and to the dust that settles through the stones.
Mr. Zona said they wet it enough to keep it from flying away.
Mr. Ruddock asks what happens when it rains. This is a powdered dust, is it recycled like it is in the bag house, does it sit on the ground in a big chunk of mud that gets cleaned up once a month when they get rid of the pile or when they utilize the pile.
Mr. Zona said it sits on a pile on the ground and when they make the asphalt which they will make everyday and they will pick it up with a front end loader and bring it over to the facility so they are constantly going to be making it and moving it from one place to another.
Mr. Billings said the answer might be that the impact will be mitigated as such that it is contained on the site and nothing is going to blow off the site.
Mr. Geiss said once the aggregates are entered into the mixer chambers it is heated all up but at the top of that there are bag houses to collect any air dust in those chambers and return that right back into the system.
Mr. Thomas said the only time they won't is when they are dealing with the State because the State doesn't accept recycled materials.
Mr. Billings said the State does have a recycled material that they use.
Mr. Garrett said the crushed material that would be onsite would be an aggregate and the dust is really not considered a recycled material, it is like making a cake where they have some flower and some sugar and the small aggregate or the dust is one of those ingredients that needs to be certain exact percentage to make the cake/aggregate come out right and from that respect there aren't any real recycling of that material; that is all virgin material that would come into the process and each size stone is actually a product of the crushing depending on how small they crush it to but they are trying each of those sizes so the aggregate locks itself together so the binder just holds it there. It is rock on rock if the aggregate is mixed properly.
Mr. Ruddock asked the flow rate of the water on the conveyer belt when it is crushed.
Mr. Garrett said very minimal, they are just trying to contain dust so it would be a sprayed mist. Most of this material when it comes out of the ground is wet and the reason they are running it through the drying operation is to get the moisture out of it otherwise the liquid won't stick to it so part of that has 4% moisture already in that material so it is usually kind of damp already it is just when they are crushing it sometimes there are fines that come off and periodically they would have to spray it but it is just a mist to hold it on the belt. He has no idea exactly how much it is but it is a very small amount because water is the enemy and it costs them big money to dry that off of there.
Mr. Ruddock asked if there is going to be 2 onsite well systems, one for the less than 100 gallons a day for the flushing of toilets and another well for the mechanical operations or process operations.
Mr. Fogel said there are going to be 2 wells. One for potable water for the few employees that are going to be there and there is going to be a septic system as well; all of which are going to be designed in accordance with the Dept. of Health and the plans will be reviewed and approved by DOH and the other well will just provide water for use on the site.
The Board decided that the answer to this question would be yes with a small to moderate impact contained on the site.
Question 8 - Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
Mr. Billings said he would suggest that the Board can't answer that question yet because they are still waiting for a letter back.
Mr. Fogel said in the beginning of the month they sent a letter to DEC Natural Heritage program and the DEC has a database based on information that the DEC has collected over a number of years where the DEC has locations of threatened and endangered species in NY and they put a submittal in to DEC and gave DEC a map and coordinates of where the proposed action is and the DEC checks their database and let the applicant know whatever threatened or endangered species are on the site. It takes a few weeks and they still haven't heard back.
Mr. Geiss said the applicant is using the gravel bed or excavated area and they are not in the woods or vegetated areas.
Mr. Billings said there are trees on the site and if there are Indiana Bats that are in that area then the answer to this question is going to be yes and they are only going to be able to cut trees down during certain times of the year.
Question 9 - Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
The Board agreed that question nine would be answered no because the applicant is not removing any of the wooded area.
Question 10 - Will proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
The Board agreed that question 10 would be answered no.
Question 11 - Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
Mr. Geiss said if someone is standing on the hill there will be a visual impact.
Mr. Billings said especially if the structure is 76ft high.
Mr. Geiss asked if any of this will be seen from Van Buren Rd or Herman Rd.
Mr. Zona said road elevation at the entrance is 490ft and the plateau is about 578ft so the road is about 90ft taller than where they are going to put the actual structure than the road. The trees between Van Buren Rd and the site at the tree line of the clearing where the facility is going to go are anywhere from 17 to 50ft but the site actually climbs as you head to the west along Van Buren Rd and the trees get up to 28ft high and also to the south the trees are up to 60ft high and the elevations of those trees are also 598ft to 627ft and the site which is 598ft.
Mr. Geiss said the bank is anywhere from 20 to 40ft higher than the site.
Mr. Billings said that the Board can make them float a balloon like the cell towers but keep in mind the question really is will the proposed action affect the aesthetic resources, it doesn't ask whether it can be seen from the road.
Mr. Geiss said there are two towers down the road that are much higher because the towers are on a hill so aesthetically here there are things in the air and this will be seen visually and the Board may need to float a balloon to see what the difference is.
Mr. Geiss said that he thinks the answer is yes with a small to moderate impact.
Mr. Virginia said there are homeowners over there and it is a rural setting out in the country and those people are going to see a 30ft tower storing asphalt so he thinks this will alter the view a little bit.
Mr. Billings said the purpose of the visual EAF addendum is to help the Board make a decision so the Board might like the applicant to complete the visual EAF and float a balloon.
The Board discussed asking the applicant to fly the balloon.
The Board asked that the applicant complete the Visual EAF addendum 1617.21 appendix B.
The Board decided to wait until the Visual EAF is completed before deciding whether there is a small to moderate or large impact.
Question 12 - Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance?
Mr. Fogel said that they went onto SHPPO's website and SHPPO has databases where information regarding historic sites and archeological sensitive areas are listed and they have printed out a map showing that there are none on the site.
Mr. Geiss said he would say that the answer is no because they are working in an area that has been previously disturbed and it is outside any sensitive area.
Question 13 - Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
The Board agreed that the answer to question 13 would be no.
Question 14 - Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environment area established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)?
The Board agreed that the answer to question 14 would be no.
Question 15 - Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
Mr. Billings said that he believes the answer to this is yes but a traffic study was done and they have received his comments to the traffic study and he believes they took a very conservative approach to the traffic study and if the 1800 tons a day/ 90 trucks a day there is no impact to local transportation system and the levels of service at the intersections are still B's or better in most cases so the bottom line is his comments to the traffic study is that he thinks they took a very conservative approach.
Mr. Thomas said in part 1, they have 6.5 trips per hour.
Mr. Zona said that is per hour and they just divided what they had per day to get to the per hour rate.
Mr. Virginia asked how much asphalt the truck coming in can hold.
Mr. Zona said between 20 and 30 tons.
Mr. Virginia asked how many 20 ton trucks can be filled in an hour at this facility. He wanted to look at this quantitatively based on how many tons a day they are forecasting based on how many tons a truck can hold gives him the truck volume that is going through there.
Mr. Zona said that he doesn't think Mr. Virginia can use it that way because the facility is limited by how much it can produce and he doesn't think the Board can look at by how much a truck can hold because if the facility can't produce it then the truck can't leave.
Mr. Geiss asked how much the facility can produce.
Mr. Zona said 150 tons per hour and it takes up to 15 minutes to fill a truck.
The Board discussed the maximum output for trucks and asphalt.
Mr. Zona said that they did take the conservative approach and they know the facility is not going to operate at full tilt speed but in the traffic study they did analyze it operating that fast.
Mr. Billings said that he likes to have a traffic study done 10 years into the future and grow the local traffic so they can see what it looks like and Mr. Zona is providing that tonight.
Mr. Zona said they did analyze it for ten years at a conservative increase of 2% per year traffic and the level of service still remained the same after 10 years of development in the area.
Mr. Geiss asked why it was assumed that 85% of the trucks exiting the plant would be going north towards I90 and RT 690.
Mr. Zona said they assumed 85% because they assumed that the major highway in the area was 690 and the major thoroughfare is where trucks will be going and will be headed towards that direction so they assumed 85%.
Mr. Geiss asked where the other 15% would go.
Mr. Zona said local paving jobs or if it's quicker to go to Camillus that way then they would go that way.
Mr. Geiss said 690 is appropriate to go to Camillus rather local roads and all areas can be reached by 690 or the Thruway unless there is a Lakeland use.
Mr. Zona said the 15% is assumed for local paving jobs, local businesses and local driveways.
Mr. Geiss said there isn't enough local to generate 15% of that plant.
Mr. Thomas asked where the aggregate comes from.
Mr. Spano said Route 690.
Mr. Zona said some of that traffic also refers to cars.
Mr. Geiss said one of the limitations the Board talked about was to keep everything back to Route 690 and the Thruway because that gives them access to everywhere in the vicinity and away from the vicinity.
Mr. Zona said that they can't control where the trucks turn when they drive out of there, they can tell the truck where to go but if the truck has a job that is local and they want to go that way then the truck will go that way.
Mr. Geiss said that they do have control of that and the tank farm is controlled that way too.
The Board decided that the answer to question 15 is yes and that a traffic study was done and the applicant has also submitted the balance for future traffic as well.
Question 16 - Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply?
The Board agreed that the answer to question 16 would be no.
Question 17 - Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action?
Mr. Fogel and the Board agreed that the answer to this question would be yes.
Mr. Fogel said that there is a nuisance odor that is associated with asphalt and everyone has driven by it on the road and what they would like to do is discuss where the potential exists along the process. They have already submitted what the controls are going to be to mitigate the potential for the release of the nuisance odors.
Mr. Fogel said what they have at this site is the potential for a nuisance odor that is there and they are going to try and capture as much of it as they can with their controls and they are still not going to obviously try and claim that every single piece of nuisance odor is captured because that is just not possible but what they have here at this site is huge 20 acre buffer area between their project site and the property line. In addition to that they have a quarry situation where they are sort of in a bowl so they have topographical differences and they also have a vegetative buffer almost all the way around the entire site and he thinks when they speak about odor they are mostly concerned about if those nuisance odors they can't completely capture find a way off the site it would be done by virtue of a real windy day and the wind takes
it. They want to make sure that the receptors aren't getting hit with these nuisance odors.
Mr. Fogel showed the Board a map where the receptors are located.
Mr. Fogel said even on a day where the wind might start heading in a direction to one of the receptors they are also lucky enough that is the area where they have the largest separation distance and the largest amount of vegetative buffer so they have the combination of huge distance, vegetative buffer, controls that will mitigate this nuisance odor and they will also explain what the condensers do to mitigate it. They are lucky enough to have a location that is in the middle of a site and with huge buffers they felt confident that this will be mitigated to a point where it is practical.
Mr. Garrett said the whole plant is designed around the best available technology that is in the industry today. The whole plant is enclosed from the time the aggregate gets there and its in a drum and a conveyor and in the silo so they are containing as many of the odors or other things that are present that others might find objectionable. When someone looks at it they try to decide what the smell is and what happens is the odor gets on particles so when they can contain the particles that is when most of the odors are contained.
Mr. Garrett said on the plant they have a complete bag and filter to help extract as much of that odor with the particulate because it will adhere to the particulate and they are going to hold that in the tank which is another area with potential because they are filling a tank and when they fill the tank they have vapors or gas that is going to come off there.
Mr. Garrett said they are displacing the tank when they put something in there so they have an internal vent and overflow so as that liquid is coming into the tank any air or whatever is in that tank is going to the top of the tank which tends to condense and fall right down into the tank. The overflow isn't out of the top of the tank it is down inside the tank and then out at the bottom wall, so if they did have a spill for instance this liquid asphalt would be coming to the ground not over the tank because they don't want anything on top of the tank so these products can actually condense in the tank and not even run out that open because as they fill it they are bringing liquid in and as it pushes those gases against the roof of the tank and it will tend to condense anything that was in there and fall out.
Mr. Garrett said they have to work hard to get the odor out of that tank. In the process of mixing all of that is contained in the big rotary dryer where they are mixing and drying the rock and in that same dryer they are bringing liquid asphalt into that process and mixing that in there but that whole system is totally contained and all of the off gases and anything that is created there is going through the bag filter to extract that so they are trying to extract all of the particles in regulation to the amount of all the particulate that can be admitted so they are capturing all that and with that comes any smell which usually gets contained there and that is all then brought back into the process with the fine aggregate that they want back. On the plant itself those are the things that they are basically doing to contain that within the
plant facility.
Mr. Virginia asked about the trucks when the trucks are loaded.
Mr. Garrett said it is State law that all the trucks are covered so when they are loading the odor travels with the particles and that is the advantage of being at a site like this one when they are filling the truck and they open the gates and here comes the material into the truck. They are going to get plumage off of that because it is disturbing that liquid again or the material and as that material falls though it is going to fall right on that site and if there is a strong wind this is at the lowest point of the plant, it is above the bed of the truck but it is very low compared to the whole site so it is all below the tree line and he thinks they have done a great job of laying this plant out so all that should be filtered through the vegetation tremendously before it ever exits the property.
Mr. Geiss asked if there were any examples of other facilities where the vegetation does absorb the odor.
Mr. Garrett said most plants are in a more metropolitan area but he knows that the vegetation will collect a lot of it and he's sure there will be some smell that travels with the truck but if they close it the smell will stay with the truck.
Mr. Geiss asked what the level of the smell would be and he knows that is a very nebulous thing but it is labeled by how many dilutions and other things that there are. Has there ever been any study with hot mix plants to determine the level of smell that there is.
Mr. Garrett said there is a center for asphalt technologies that tries to determine these things but he can't say that odor is a non-tangible but odor is where someone wears one kind of perfume and some people love it and some people hate it or notice it more.
Mr. Geiss said that he has done work for sewer plants in his career where they have had odor panels so he knows by dilutions and yes everyone is a little different and they don't do this with one person they do it with a panel of independent people that they bring in and he is surprised that there has never been a study done that has developed a level of odors.
Mr. Garrett said to his knowledge there isn't one but that doesn't mean there isn't one because who provides the liquid is the large petroleum companies and he's sure that these companies have done something but at the plant site they don't deal with this at all.
Mr. Billings asked if there would be any value in soliciting input from other municipalities that have similar facilities and asked where the applicant's closest facility is located.
Mr. Spano said Farrell Rd.
Mr. Geiss asked if those facilities gathered odor complaints.
Mr. Billings said that he would imagine that the Town would.
Mr. Fogel said that he has never permitted a facility with this kind of buffer and it is quite a distance to the receptors than he has ever seen.
Mr. Ruddock said the staff at the Holiday Inn would be the best test; does the staff smell it.
Mr. Spano said that is also an older and different plant.
Mr. Garrett said the proposed plant is a state of the art plant and any plant that the Board is going to look at is going to be an older facility that doesn't have a lot of the mitigation techniques and controls for it. This plant will have everything that the industry is aware of to be able to help so they couldn't compare someone else's plant but if the Board could that would give the Board insight as to what the issue is out there.
Mr. Thomas said he went to Farrell Rd and he didn't pick up any great amount of odors and people were placing tarps on their trucks as they came out.
Ms. Goodman says that she goes by there 6 times a week and she didn't realize there was a plant down there.
The Board discussed other plants in the area.
Mr. Geiss said usually with odors that the Board is talking about it is the person that drives by that smells it the most rather than the person working there because the normal human anatomy all of a sudden doesn't register it after a while when they are on site.
Mr. Fogel said they aren't denying this, if someone drives by it it's a nuisance odor but he feels that given the situation they have a lot of mitigation.
Mr. Geiss said the mitigation really is the distance to the receptors.
Mr. Fogel said the filters, the topography, and the vegetative buffer.
The Board agreed that the answer to question 17 would be yes and that it has a potential to be a large impact but then the mitigation is the distance to the receptors, the vegetation and the technology.
Mr. Ruddock asked if the material that is causing the odor, the chemical whatever it be, negatively impacts the plants and the trees and would they over time kill those trees and lose that buffer and has there been any study or do they know what the chemical is and how that affects natural vegetation or trees.
Mr. Garrett said there is a huge study going on trying to identify what the odor is and that has been almost a four year study to try to identify what it is. The people who are producing the asphalt material that they use the oil industry is trying to tell through study what makes that and they have identified some compounds but some have gone through a series of studies where they take 6 compounds that they think are a problem and 2 people will smell it and the other 4 don't and they have done that with each of the compounds and they have not as of today and they haven't identified what makes the odor yet. A lot of the plants are within distance from trees and he goes to 2 or 3 different plants everyday and he has never seen a tree have a problem and part of the design of the buffers in a lot of plants that are in a tight area are berms with
lots of vegetation on them, big trees that they have to put on there, and the trees are healthy. The national asphalt pavement association has a website with a lot of information on the way one would build a decent berm and pictures of 20 to 30 years ago with the same vegetation on the site.
Mr. Ruddock said in Mr. Garrett's experience they do not have berms, buffers, or tree lines that do not look like they have been sprayed with round up or something like that.
Mr. Garrett said no.
Mr. Geiss said that he had difficulty with the blower noises and that they talked about averages.
Mr. Billings said that his noise experts tell him that the Town's code talks about a noise level at the property line but it is not an average over an hour's period. The FHWA models he is told average models on LEQ which is an average hourly ambient noise so in other words a truck backfiring for example is averaged over an hour in the models which he thinks is the case and the Town's code doesn't really talk about that it says that at no point at any time will the noise exceed 70dba at the property line so it is a little bit apples and oranges he thinks in the way that the noise study was done but it is something he thinks they should expand on.
Mr. Billings said it is more of the language in the Town's code versus how noise is typically measured.
Mr. Geiss asked what the noise levels are at similar plants.
Mr. Fogel said the thing that they tried to do with the noise study and he understands the Board's concern but the important thing is what people are going to hear at nearby residences so what they did is went through and made a conservative analysis evaluation sound at the property line and the projected numbers are pretty low, they are in the 50's and 60's. Assuming a worst case scenario with everything running at once out of the 6 receptors at property boundary and based on all those running at once which is a very conservative analysis the numbers range from a low of 51 to 63.
Mr. Fogel said he has a source book for mine sites and asphalt plants and other types of facilities and in that there is a chart of typical sound sources and the dba levels that are typically associated with that are between 50 and 60 decibels and this is like 50ft from light auto traffic or about 20ft from an air conditioning unit just to put it into perspective what these numbers that they determined at the property line represent. The important thing is that by the time the sound travels to the nearby receptors those sound levels will be even further reduced. DEC has a noise guidance policy that they put out and the DEC has determined that for each doubling of distance from the noise source from that property line these noise levels would be reduced by 6 decibels just by distance alone and that is not even taking into account all the
intervening vegetation that is at the site that is between the project area where the noise sources are to where people 1200 to 2000ft away are going to be able to hear that source so by the time that gets to them they will be talking a much lower number and these are already low numbers. This study did not even take into account intervening vegetation between the project source and the property line so if they took into account all the intervening trees and vegetative cover the numbers would be even lower than they came out.
Mr. Geiss asked what the loudest thing on the site is.
Mr. Garrett said typically there are 2 or 3 areas of the plant that are usually about the same noise level and it is primarily the fan that is on the burner, the fan that is on the bag house, and some of the cylinders that are releasing air as they move the cylinders and those are usually located on the bottom of the silos to open and close the gates. Most burners and those fans associated with the burner right at the burner are around 85 decibels and when someone moves 10ft away from that they are down in the 70 decibels, as someone moves 20ft away they are in the 60ft decibel range and there are charts that can show the Board on plants. As someone goes off the property the noise level becomes where the traffic and things that are moving on the road are noisier than the things that are on the perimeter of the plant because of just that noise
level and if they take a 50 decibel he is talking more than 50 decibels right now. These burners will be enclosed and everything that is available to help even reduce the normal decibel level on the plant.
Mr. Fogel said what he is hearing is that the Town's experts in noise are seeking clarification so he would like to take those questions to their people that did the noise study and hopefully that will clear it up for the Board.
Mr. Billings said that he thinks the concern generally was that analysis that the applicant did was based on averages which is typical but the Town's code doesn't address that and Mr. Pringle could go out there at any point in time for a half an hour and measure the dba level and it might reach 70 dba by two trucks going up the hill passing each other but that peak really isn't addressed in the study because these are averages and that is the way the model works as he understands it.
Mr. Ruddock said one of the things that concerns him is protecting the residential properties that exist on the southern edge to the east of the property and this used to be an agricultural district and in an effort for the Town to develop commercial industrial facilities to increase the tax base this area was zoned industrial and the oil tanks also came in and there was a lot of large complaints in the Town about this and the people were somewhat consoled by the fact that they could stay in their residential applications for as long as they wished so the people were kind of assured of that and the people were happy sitting right in the middle of an industrial district. As a member of this Board the industrial district allows certain things and unfortunately these people didn't move out or realize what was being done when they did have the
public action to change it to an industrial zoning. For industrial facilities like Hardy construction they know what they are doing and they are in that area to the north of the site and that would not bother him so if they are going to be looking at maximum decibel ratings at site perimeters he thinks he would be looking to see the distances in the residential pieces and he believes they are rather large and he does know that sound dissipates over distance but to Mr. Billings point where they are talking averages versus peaks if they are going to be doing anything with peaks he would want to know the peaks that would occur to the east and to the south and south west corners.
Mr. Ruddock said when someone is in the city and they have that background white noise and that really masks the overall decibel level with the peaks but when someone sits out in the middle of the country such as the guy that lives next door to him and two horse drawn carriages went up Connors Rd that was a very busy day because his neighbor likes it quite and that's what he thinks they are going to see with the residential properties and some of them are getting older and maybe their hearing is not all that good or they have been around well drilling equipment for too long but there are properties to the south that he thinks they need to look at.
Mr. Zona said fortunately for them as a positive for their site when they talked before about elevation difference there is a natural grade there that is 40 or 50ft higher to the south and to the east from where the facility sits and the facility sits down and that cutout is actually to the south and to the east so they are not up on the hill with the sound projecting.
Mr. Ruddock said that he would expect the loudest noise to be located towards the north side of the site and he would also say that the blower or fan be mounted on the north side of the tower as opposed to ease, west, or south if there is that option. The direction that something is mounted can make a difference like a jet airplane, if someone is behind it can be heard a whole lot louder than if they are in front of it or off to the side and he would just like some sensitivity to that design of the plant.
Mr. Virginia asked if the driveway was going to be paved or gravel.
Mr. Spano said it would be paved.
Mr. Virginia said that would reduce some of the noise and he would just like to make sure the truck traffic traveling through there by that R2 receptor he thinks is the area where they are probably going to have the most problems with sound based on the way the site is laid out and did the model take into account what Mr. Ruddock was saying about truck traffic passing side by side next to that receptor because he thinks what Mr. Ruddock has a very good point because he is out in the country and he can hear his neighbor hitting golf balls at a couple hundred yards away at times.
Mr. Fogel said they will take down the Board's questions and talk to the guys who prepared the noise study and get back to the Board.
Question 18 - Will proposed action affect public health and safety?
Mr. Fogel said yes they are going to be storing fuel oil where there previously wasn't any fuel. Fuel that is not stored properly could have a risk of explosion so he would think that this is a small to moderate impact based upon some of the mitigation measures mentioned earlier such as the tank being registered with DEC and the fuel oil being stored within DEC regulations will mitigate any potential for risk of explosion or release of substances.
Mr. Geiss said he has to ask the probability because they have a large storage tank for the asphalt; what is the likelihood of that breaking and dumping.
Mr. Garrett said that if it does escape it won't travel because it would set up right away.
Mr. Geiss said basically they have the storage of fuel oil which is under DEC regulations and this would have a small to moderate impact.
Mr. Ruddock asked how many gallons are stored.
Mr. Fogel said 20,000 gallons.
Mr. Ruddock asked what fire department would cover this site.
Mr. Pringle said Lakeside Fire Department.
Mr. Ruddock asked what type of equipment the fire department has for that type of fire.
Mr. Pringle said the fire department would have to bring water in because there is no public water.
Mr. Virginia said they could use foam.
Mr. Pringle said they could use foam but foam has to be used with water so they would be using high volumes of water anytime they are using foam. Foam is available through the Warners Fire District and at the tank farm to a certain point, the tank farm certainly wouldn't release too much of their agent off site but the fire department has a 2,000 gallon foam truck which is mutual aid to Lakeside but the fire department has a lot of questions and he is working with them now.
Mr. Ruddock said the point behind this is that it is easy to say that there is a DEC regulation for a 20,000 gallon tank but when a 20,000 gallon tank ruptures how is the public going to be protected and that is a public health issue. The applicant is looking at the affect but he is looking at the solution to it and as a Planning Board and with site plan the Board needs to be looking at it.
Mr. Pringle said that it is a combustible liquid it is not flammable but the fuel oil is their highest hazard onsite.
The Board agreed that the answer to question 18 is yes and there is a small to moderate impact.
Question 19 - Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
Mr. Geiss said there would be additional service in regard to fire.
Mr. Pringle said that there is a potential there.
Mr. Billings stated that the applicant answered yes in Part 1 also for police and fire.
Mr. Fogel said the project will create employment during construction and then during typical operations should make about 4 new jobs so that will make a positive impact on the character of the community.
The Board agreed that the answer to question 19 would be yes with a small to moderate impact.
Question 20 - Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
Mr. Billings said the first question is has the Board identified any adverse environmental impacts.
Mr. Geiss said they are working on noise, odor, and several of the impacts so he doesn't know if the Board can answer this yet.
Mr. Fogel said they need to submit the material safety data sheet, the visual EAF addendum, clarification on the noise study, and the response from SHPPO.
Mr. Fogel said the Town Board has had three public hearings during which time they have heard from four people and one email.
Mr. Billings said the Town Board received a letter from the property owner and read that into the Town Board minutes and he believes it was a letter of support.
Mr. Thomas said that he thinks the biggest issue with noise would be if they got a State contract and they had to do a lot of paving at night and noise would come in a lot more than during the daytime.
Mr. Geiss said that he thinks that is more of a site plan issue where the Board can control that with hours of operation and with traffic control.
Mr. Geiss said what the Board is waiting for is the MSDS, a letter from the natural heritage program, visual EAF, the Board is going to contact Geddes and Jamesville to see if there have been odor complaints in the area, and clarification on the engineer's questions on noise.
Mr. Ruddock asked if there was any reference in the traffic study to egress from the site and sight distance on the existing driveway and if there is any stack distance on the property site or vehicles waiting to exit, are they coming down a hill and he knows it is going to be paved but is there adequate sight distance at the current posted speed.
Mr. Billings said on that stretch there is.
Mr. Fogel said their earlier submittals from February they put together a map for line of sight making a left or a right onto Van Buren Rd and going both ways the line of sight making a left onto Van Buren Rd is 920ft and is over 1200ft going out towards the right and that exceeds both State and County DOT regulations.
Mr. Billings asked if the traffic study has been submitted to the County DOT.
Mr. Spano said not yet.
Mr. Geiss said this SEQR is really to assist the Town Board in their zone change and that is what the public hearing is about and that is where the Board is at, no site plan has been done or other work on this project and what the Board is looking at is to resolve an overall SEQR as an involved agency and took the lead to assist the Town Board in completing the zone change and also for future site plan review for this Board so it would be all encompassed in SEQR.
Mr. Hunt said the Board can not make a SEQR significance determination tonight. The Board could pass a resolution that the Planning Board is the lead agency.
Mr. Geiss said the letters from County DOT and the Thruway are the only letters the Board has received back on the Board taking lead agency so the 30 days have passed.
Motion 08-053 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion with regard to SEQR for the Spano project located on Van Buren Rd between Herman and Walters Rd that the Board wished to declare the Town of Van Buren Planning Board as lead agency for a coordinated review of this action. The Planning Board published notice of its desire to serve as lead agency and the Board has received comments from two agencies, the Thruway and Onondaga County DOT: no other comments have been received and the 30-day period has expired, so the Board now declares itself lead agency with regard to SEQR. This as a Type 1 action. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Goodman. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Mr. Geiss stated that the Board needs the other data and then the Board can make the determination of significance and also to see if an EIS will be needed or not. There are a lot of items and he believes the applicant has covered a lot of them but his personal idea is that he thinks it is a very good site and he would like to make a good project and he doesn't want SEQR to interfere with that. In some ways he is leaning towards a positive declaration on this so that there will be a full EIS done and that it is put to bed and it will never come back to haunt them by any challenges and he is going to think about that some more for his own information and he proposes that to the Board because he thinks that this is a very good project and if they do all the steps and it might be a little extra step but right now he is inclined to look at that
because then the Board can say that it has all been done and the Board has given everyone every opportunity and the Board can not be bothered by it because he looks at SEQR that if anyone wants to challenge they can bring it against that rather than against the project.
Mr. Fogel said that he wants to make sure that everyone is on the same page and everyone is aware that just saying that this is to protect them from a challenge when all they are going to do is package what they have given the Board into an EIS because they need to make sure what they give to the Board is appropriate for the Board to make the decision. The Board can do a negative declaration and have all of that material to justify a negative declaration he just doesn't want the Board to think that to protect them from challenges this needs to be a positive declaration.
Mr. Geiss said with a positive declaration it opens up a public hearing concerning this.
Mr. Hunt said generally when there is a positive declaration there would be a public hearing on the draft EIS.
Mr. Fogel said there is usually a positive declaration to explore things the Board hasn't already explored and that is why he just wants to make sure that the Board is not just saying let's do a positive declaration unless something else is needed.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board is not making any decisions.
Mr. Geiss said the next meeting will be on July 7, 2008.
Mr. Virginia asked if they are bringing recycled material on site and what exactly is that recycled material.
Mr. Spano said asphalt.
Mr. Virginia asked how long the asphalt would be sitting on the ground and does asphalt that is sitting on the ground pose a risk to groundwater.
Mr. Zona said it is no different than driving on it.
Mr. Virginia said it is a petroleum product sitting out there being rained on.
Mr. Billings said most of the oil by that period especially if it is being milled up chances are that it has lost its oil.
Mr. Pringle said the storm water management area will capture anything and that is why when they do inspections they look for sheen on top of the surface of water and communicators like that.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion
Mr. Geiss called for a Motion to adjourn at 9:21 p.m. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Goodman. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Vera Cavallaro
Planning Board Secretary
| ||
