Laserfiche WebLink
of Health, advised that Mr. Malloy had a class four composting registration from the EPA at this <br />location. They have been working with him since last June with regard to cleaning up the site and <br />properly operating a composting site. His registration allows him to take in source separated yard <br />waste, leaves, grass clippings. He is not in compliance with them at this time, and they have had no <br />response from him. They are going to revoke his license. They were there yesterday, but they did <br />not see compost, they saw decomposing materiaL This is not composting. He was told not to bring <br />any material onto the site until the site was brought up to compliance. He has totally disregarded <br />their request. There is other material beside compost, paper products, garbage, and construction <br />debris. If they do not receive a call or if he is not in compliance in the next few weeks, they will <br />contact the EPA to request that his license be revoked. Councilman McKay stated that this business <br />is not compatible with this location. Some businesses, such as C.P.A's. or eye doctors are allowed in <br />a residential neighborhood, but not something like this which will generate an odor. Mr. Caraffi <br />explained that if this were a proper compost pile, there would be no really bad odor. Councilman <br />McKay believed that the drive is in a dangerous location. Mr. Geiger did not believe that compost <br />could be turned around in a month. He stated that the odor is terrible. His basement floods and the <br />water runoff comes from this prop erty. He is also concerned that there are fertilizers and chemicals <br />in this pile. He noted that there is a composting facility at the airport where they could take their <br />clippings, etc. Ms. Bowmau presented pictures of this area which back up to her property. She <br />noted that she had to have a barn removed because it was a health hazard. She believed that this <br />would devaluate her property. Mr. Burneson stated the pile was behind his back yard and objects to <br />the business. Ms. Lynn stated that she did not live close enough for the smell to be a problem, but <br />objected to a business in a residential area. Ms. Reznicek agreed since this was a very residential <br />neighborhood and their taxes are high because they are close to the park. Mr. Malloy stated that he <br />had had many conversations with Eric from the Board of Health. He stated that there has been <br />dumping back there for years, not just the composting. He has been trying to get the place cleaned <br />up, but the Board of Heath never told him where he could take the materiaL Mr. Caraffi will send <br />him a list of places where he can take it. Mr. Koberna stated that this apparently has been a problem <br />for sometime, and the weather now was not responsble for the entire problem He explained that <br />the drive was put down temporarily so they could,get back to clean it up. Mr. Gomersall did not <br />think there would be an objection to having a driveway to clean up the property. Mr. Miller would <br />like the driveway limited to be used only to clean up the property. Assistant Building Commissioner <br />Rymarczyk advised that there is a violation against the property at present, and they have until June <br />30th to clean it up, if the variance is not granted. The road is there now. It was suggested that there <br />should be two motions. It was clarified for one of the neighbors that the driveway is there now. <br />R. Gomersall moved to grant to Robert Gilchrist, 23774 Mastick Road, a variance to operate a <br />business out of a residential district. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1135.02 (bl, b3, b4 and <br />b6). The motion was seconded by W. Purper. Roll call on motion: Gomersall, Purper, Miller, <br />Maloney and Koberna, no. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. <br />R. Gomersall moved to grant to Robert Crilchrist, 23774 Mastick Road a variance to have a 550 <br />foot long stone access drive rather than a concrete or bituminous drive. with the stipulation that a <br />su$'icient chain be installed across the drive and sign be posted "No Entry, Private Property". <br />Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1161.11(a). The motion was seconded by J. Maloney, and <br />unanimously approved. <br />During the framing of the motion it was decided that the driveway should be chained off and posted <br />no entry, private drive.