Hempstead Village Planning Board rejects proposed waste transfer station

The Hempstead Village Planning Board has denied an application for a green waste and construction debris transfer station proposed for a site 100 feet from homes and expected to draw more than 100 trucks per day.

Planning board members unanimously rejected the project during a heated special meeting at Kennedy Park in Hempstead Wednesday night.

The application group consists of Hempstead-based Champ Construction Corp., New York Sand and Stone Inc., Hempstead-based Fildon LLC and Inwood-based Don Cristi LLC, submitted plans for a 15,020-square-foot waste transfer station at 43 Sewell St. -- a decontaminated brownfield site.

Property owners treated and capped the site in December 2014 after it had been contaminated by a former electroplating facility with heavy metals, including nickel and chromium, Champ Construction's attorney, Michael L. Cirrito, said. The site is being used to store construction equipment.

Champ Construction officials planned to use the property to process lawn waste and tree trimmings as well as concrete and metal construction debris. Debris would be loaded inside an enclosed building and removed within 24 hours, Cirrito said.

Residents shouted down Cirrito as he gave his presentation, yelling, "Our lives matter," and "We don't want it here. Take it to your area."

"Everyone wants to dump in Hempstead. I wish someone would stand up for Hempstead," village resident Marcia Barnett, 60, told the planning board. "This is wrong. It's being done by a lot of people who don't live in Hempstead."

The applicants said odors would be controlled through misters, interior fans and deodorizers. A dust-control carbon filter would blow air away from homes, Cirrito said.

The facility was to be open from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. with 110 landscaping trucks per day and about 20 tractor-trailers to remove waste.

The Hempstead Traffic Safety Board recommended the project be denied because it would have had a negative impact and create additional traffic on the village's already congested roads and limited parking.

"The sentiment of the traffic safety board is unanimous. We firmly believe the site is not appropriate for the site use requested," planning board chairman Leroy Brown read from a report. "There is no positive impact for the residents of this village. The only positive impact is for the owner of the facility."

The applicant's transportation study reported the facility would not increase traffic in the residential area because vehicles would enter the facility on Peninsula Boulevard.

Cirrito said he would consult with the applicant group about an appeal. "This site is a permitted use," Cirrito said after the meeting. "It's like telling a landowner they can't use their property as permitted by zoning."

By John Asbury

john.asbury@newsday.comJohnAsbury

John Asbury is a breaking news and general assignment reporter. He has been with Newsday since 2014 and previously worked at The Press-Enterprise in Riverside, California.