Town hearing on Thale site plan ends in impasse over fire‑access surfacing and containment

Supervisor Feiner opened a continuation of the public hearing on Jan. 28 for a site‑plan application by Thale (operating as Veil Industries) at 50 Warehouse Lane, a 14.3‑acre former quarry used for rock, concrete and asphalt recycling.

Deputy Building Inspector Liz Garrity told the town board the building department’s 01/28/2026 memo documents substantial unpermitted changes at the site — fueling equipment, electrical service, grading and accessory structures — and identifies three outstanding safety items that must be resolved through site‑plan review and permits: an all‑weather fire‑apparatus access road (asphalt or concrete), clear inspection corridors behind Jersey barriers and permanent spill containment beneath fueling areas.

Those technical requirements touched off an extended exchange between town staff and the applicant’s legal and technical team. David Steinmetz, counsel for Thale, acknowledged many improvements the company has made and said Thale had conceded several items (scales, a tire wash, and a loop road). But Steinmetz and Thale’s consultants, including site engineer Peter Loyola, repeatedly contested the need to pave the loop road with asphalt or concrete, arguing a properly compacted base used at industrial sites can meet the imposed loads and that paving would create maintenance and operational problems.

The building department, supported by an 11/20/2025 memo from the Elmsford Fire Department entered into the record, maintained that the New York State fire code requires an approved fire‑apparatus access surface capable of supporting fire apparatus (the memo specifies concrete or asphalt and a 75,000‑lb design load). Garrity said compacted fill and gravel are subject to rutting, displacement and uneven settlement and therefore are not acceptable as the required ‘‘all‑weather’’ surface.

The applicant’s president, Glenn Pacquiana, reiterated Thale’s long local presence and safety record and offered to limit pile heights and to run mock emergency exercises and site visits with the fire chief. Town staff and the applicant also debated whether certain on‑site blocks functioned as retaining walls that must be engineered and pinned, and whether the Zoning Board of Appeals’ special‑permit conditions are reflected accurately on the site plan.

After more than three hours of detailed technical testimony and repeated requests from the applicant for staff‑level meetings (including re‑involving the consultant PSNS that advised the ZBA), board members concluded the parties remained at an impasse on several safety‑related items. The board voted to adjourn the hearing and ordered staff and the applicant to hold working meetings; the public hearing was continued to March 11, 2026 to allow those meetings to proceed.

The board and staff said they want to protect emergency responder access and public safety while also trying to reach a practical outcome that allows the recycling operation to continue under town permits. The town recorded that staff will continue to share memos, technical tests and any DEC investigation results requested under FOIL to clarify outstanding factual questions.

The hearing adjourned without a final site‑plan decision; the town directed staff, the applicant and counsel to meet before March 11 and report back to the board.