An application to construct senior citizen housing on the site of the Twin County Resource Recovery Facility in Hicksville was the subject of a controversial meeting Tuesday before the Oyster Bay Town Board. More than 100 residents, community activists and local seniors, who arrived at the meeting via coach bus provided by the applicant, attended the Nov. 25 meeting to hear the proposal and voice their opinions, concerns and objections to the board.

Earlier this year, Vim Construction Co., Inc., Twin County Resource Recovery, Inc. and CNH Associates, submitted an application requesting a change in the zoning of a "light industrial" parcel in Hicksville to a multifamily senior citizen district in order to construct the Cantiague Commons senior housing complex. The proposed site is a 15.18-acre parcel located at 449 West John Street, west of Engel Street and north of the Long Island Rail Road - otherwise known as the Twin County Asphalt Plant.

While the plan calls for closing down the plant for the proposed project and a nearby concrete-crushing operation, the Engel Street Plant, located immediately to the west and which would no doubt abut the property, is slated to remain. As a result of the second plant and the proximity of the Long Island Rail Road, the opinion echoed throughout the room over and over was, "Build us senior housing, but find another place for it."

Since construction of the senior housing community at the proposed location requires a change in zoning, the applicants were required to go before the Oyster Bay Town Board during a public hearing so members of the community could voice their concerns and offer suggestions.

The original application called for 284 units, but in July, the applicants submitted a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) to the town scaling the application down by eight units. As it stands now, the senior citizen housing complex application calls for a two-phase project to construct 25 buildings with a total of 276 units, a 3,000-square-foot community center, pool and outdoor recreation areas.

Phase I would focus around the area where Twin County's stone piles are currently located and include 100 units among nine buildings while Phase II would encompass the remaining portion of the property and include 16 buildings for an additional 176 units. Each unit would have two bedrooms and measuring 1,175-square-feet. The complex would also include continuous walkways and park-like settings throughout the community.

The application also proposes 363 parking spots and two entrances off of West John Street as well as a 12-foot barrier, including a four-foot wall with an eight-foot fence on top, around the entire property and heavy shrubbery in the sense of some 1,200 trees and 1,700 shrubs.

Many gathered at town hall expressed hopes that the application will provide affordable housing for local seniors while, at the same time, managing to get rid of a business that has been a thorn in the community's side for almost two decades.

However, community activists and seniors alike believe the proposed site, in and of itself, is unsuitable for numerous health and safety reasons. For starters, it would be located on a "former" asphalt plant, would closely abut the Long Island Railroad and, perhaps most importantly, that the Engel Street Plant would remain. (See sidebar.)

"[The Engel Street] asphalt plant causes so many fumes at the Burns Avenue School, which is six or eight blocks away, that the principal has to keep the kids off the playground. This is three times closer than the school," Anthony Sorvillo, vice president of Hicksville's NorthWest Civic Association, said during a community meeting in June. (See Letters to the Editor, page 14.)

The way the application now stands, there would be roughly 425 feet and two industrial buildings between the southernmost senior housing unit and the Engel Street Plant. The proposed distance between the railroad tracks and the closest unit is currently between 76 and 100 feet, but is expected to be less if the LIRR installs a third track. As a result, there is also concern regarding the close proximity of the senior units to the tracks, looking towards Cambridge Court at the old Grumman site as an example.

With Cambridge Court located right near railroad tracks, whether or not the barrier will be a soundproof one is also a concern. "While [Cambridge Court] was deemed an appropriate site, my office has gotten a lot of letters regarding the noise from the railroad. People moved there hoping this would be a comfortable place to live, but yet, I have gotten letter after letter documenting quality of life issues. This is a very important issue," said Councilwoman Bonnie Eisler. "People can't sleep because the noise is unbearable. Unfortunately, sometimes, after people move in they find out there are things that they hadn't really considered and now we know that noise is an issue. So I need to know if you are building these walls, are they going to be sound-proof?"

According to Jeff Forchelli, the attorney for the applicant, this project wouled be a substantial enhancement over Cambridge Court. "Cambridge Court doesn't have a four-foot wall, doesn't have a fence on top of it. [This site] will have a solid fence and a wall, for a total of 12-feet, which is a total enhancement. It was required, because there was sensitivity to the railroad, and it was designed by our engineers and I think it will do the job," he said.

Not satisfied with his answer, Eisler said, "You should have to consider that the track hasn't changed and knowing what we know now, and knowing that it isn't the railroad's responsibility but our responsibility - the town board, to make sure those issues are addressed. What I am asking you is, is this wall that you are proposing going to soundproof enough so as not to disturb the quality of life of residents? I would suggest to you, from our experience, that this is not something we really cannot compromise on because it makes a big difference."

Councilwoman Mary McCaffery added that she would like to see improvements made to improve the effects of vibrations and Councilman Anthony Macagnone questioned whether or not the applicant is willing to spend the money to make the barriers soundproof. "That seems to be a problem with many of the projects we've had so far. Many were shoddily constructed ...," he said. "Are we willing to go the extra step on this one?"

Forchelli replied, "We think it's a substantial enhancement, but me standing here as the attorney for the applicant, I am not a noise expert. We will supply you with information that we hope will satisfy you in terms of the noise. We will do what needs to be done. Whatever we have to do, we will do." Forchelli added that he will speak with his client and get back to the board.

"One who looks at the site now would look at it and say, 'you can't put that there' but Twin County is not going to be there if this is built," Forchelli said. "You have to exercise a little imagination and say that when this is built, Twin County will be gone, the site will be graded and cleared. It will be just a flat site that is going to be developed."

Eisler, however, questioned original documents pertaining to the application which suggested that parts of the asphalt plant would continue to exist until phase one of the project was complete. "Have you changed that or is that still the plan now? What are the applicants' plan?" she asked. "I would like you to address this issue."

Supervisor John Venditto added, "I think I speak for the rest of the board when I say this, but from the standpoint of 'would I want my mother living there,' I cannot foresee a scenario in which the town would issue building permits while operations at Twin County are still going on."

In a previous article, Greg Yatzyshyn, a trustee with the NorthWest Civic Association (NWCA), said, "It was inferred that the asphalt plant is leaving, but there are two. The Twin County Plant will eventually be removed if this [application] is approved. The other asphalt plant is staying. I recommend that you drive down West John Street and look down Engel Street. You can see this big, brown rusty plant just west of Burns Avenue. That plant is staying!"

Yatzyshyn, whose association includes those homes in the immediate vicinity of the plants, added, "This is not an asphalt issue, that's a fight for another day. This is a senior housing issue. Seniors should live in the best possible conditions and we feel this location, smack in the middle of an industrial area, is inappropriate."

According to Yatzyshyn, if altered from its current form to take the adjacent plant and the Long Island Rail Road into consideration, then maybe the proposal would work. "We are not against it if they can come up with some sort of plan that would make it an appropriate place for senior housing," he said. "But the way the current application is submitted, it is just no good."

According to David Staton, president of the Duffy Park Civic Association - which encompasses those homes south of the site, changing the zoning would solve a long-standing problem - Twin County.

"Once [the town] changes the zoning and it is shut down permanently, they can never go back to making asphalt because it would be illegal use in that zone," said Staton, adding that although the points of view from those opposed are valid, he believes seniors need to be given more credit.

"The way the people who are opposed to it presented it was as though our seniors citizens are going to be marched over there handcuffed and blindfolded and forced to sign agreements, Staton said. "We need to give our seniors more credit in making those decisions. Our senior citizens are smart enough to make their own decisions as to where they want to live. If they choose not to live there because it is not appropriate, we will not be any worse off than we are today."

In his presentation to the board, Forchelli stated that there are issues that need to be addressed when considering the application: Does the town want Twin County operations to continue? Does the town promote golden age housing? Is this an appropriate place for golden age housing?

"I think it's fair to say that the town would like to see [operations] at Twin County discontinue. The answer to that one is affirmative. I think we can all conclude yes," Forchelli said. "I think the answer to the second one, 'does it promote golden age housing,' is not yes, its emphatically yes. There hasn't been any town on Long Island that has done more to promote golden age housing on Long Island than the Town of Oyster Bay."

As to whether or not the proposed site is an appropriate one, the attorney said, "That's the $64,000 question. We believe, and have studied this and developed a plan with the input of many, many agencies, that we have a site that can and will and is a good site for this use."

According to Venditto, years of controversy pertaining to the site as well as several dismissed applications over the years for the property now comes down to this particular application.

''This is an opportunity for the town board and the residents of Hicksville to make a statement about what direction they want to take. There is a lot riding on this," the supervisor told Forchelli. "This is an application for affordable senior housing at a given location and one of the issues that I am most focused on is that it will be helpful if you can clearly demonstrate to me and the town board that the location, by and large, is suitable. I have to be convinced. You are talking about our parents' generation. I think you really need to focus heavily on convincing me, and the town board, that this is a suitable site."

After being faced with an extremely large negative reaction from those in attendance, as well as from the town board members themselves who felt the plan needed some definite changes, Forchelli, told the board that "The developer has to look and see if there are more mitigations and modifications that could be made."

The record on Tuesday's meeting will be left open for at least 30 days so that any residents who could not attend can submit comments for the official record. A decision by the board is not expected until next year.

During the meeting, the NorthWest Civic Association (NWCA) presented the board with various reasons why they oppose the project, including research they collected on the site and the surrounding area and 11 different visual aids. Among them were maps from the health department indicating, by zip code, the level of lung cancer in Nassau County. According to the maps, the number of lung cancer cases was larger than expected in the 11801-area.

Several months ago, the town hired Cashion Associates to conduct a study of the operations and activities at the Engel Street Plant. Surveys were sent to residents in the vicinity of the plant asking them what they thought was the biggest problem at the plant and when the peak times of those problems are.

"We hired Cashion Associates to do the testing and when they received the surveys back, they set up a testing schedule. From that schedule, they tested noise measurements and are comparing them with the standards listed in town code," said Kevin DeLury, spokesperson for the town. "They are calculating and comparing dust-particle concentrations [at the plant] to existing [Department of Environmental Conservation] standards. They did odor testing techniques to determine impact on the environment and took air samples to test for potentially hazardous chemicals."

DeLury added that Cashion Associates is currently putting this information together for a report. "Once complete, they will send [the report] over to the town for consideration," he said. "It will be taken into consideration when reviewing the senior housing application."

Greg Yatzyshyn, a NWCA trustee, however, doesn't think that the survey and testing will mean anything, noting that the plant was notified every time testing was to take place. "They are going to come back and say there isn't a problem," he said.