BATAVIA/DEC will require Baskin Livestock to obtain an Air State Facility permit prior to reconstruction of Howard Street facility

Nearby neighbor Graham Manufacturing concerned about the reconstruction of the facility on Howard Street.

A Public Hearing by the Planning and Development Committee is scheduled at City Centre on Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 6:00p.m.

The NYS DEC has advised Baskin Livestock that they are required to have an Air State Facility permit before reconstruction in a letter dated July 11, 2025.

In the letter sent to owner Bill Baskin, the DEC explained why an Air State Facility permit is now required.

According to Frank Sowers, P.E. Regional Air Pollution Control Engineer in Region 8, the Facility was originally constructed and operated without any air emission sources. NYSDEC
issued an Air Facility Registration (AFR) to the Facility on March 21, 2024. The AFR allowed the
Facility to construct and operate an air emission source for a natural gas fired drying process.
On November 9, 2024, the Facility suffered a catastrophic fire and ceased operating.
In May 2025, NYSDEC was informed that Baskin Livestock intended to reconstruct the Facility.
On May 20, 2025, NYSDEC sent Baskin Livestock a letter requiring an ASF permit prior to
reconstruction. Baskin Livestock subsequently requested that NYSDEC reconsider its position.
In a May 30, 2025 email, Baskin Livestock suggested resuming operation under the March 21,
2024 AFR and applying for an ASF permit at a later date.

In determining whether an ASF permit is required for the Facility, NYSDEC has re-evaluated the
proposed re-construction, the resulting emission sources, and the following information:

• The nature of the process and the air emissions;
• The status of the original processing equipment (the burner and dryer remain at the
  Facility and are usable; the original emission control equipment is not);
• The history of dust and odor complaints received by the City of Batavia and NYSDEC
  related to operations at the Facility;
• Baskin’s compliance history, including a July 31, 2023, Notice of Violation NYSDEC
  issued to the Facility for constructing an emission source without a permit or registration;
• Applicable regulations; and
• Baskin Livestock’s interest in expediting re-construction and resuming operations at the
  Facility as quickly as possible.

Upon consideration of this information, NYSDEC has determined the following:

Baskin Livestock cannot re-construct and operate air emission sources at the Facility
under the March 21, 2024 AFR. Re-constructing the air emission sources at the Facility
constitutes a modification which, in accordance with 6 NYCRR 201-4.2 and 6 NYCRR
201-1.2, requires a new AFR or an ASF permit.
• An ASF permit is appropriate prior of the re-construction of emission sources at the
Facility.
• In accordance with 6 NYCRR 201-4.1(b), an ASF permit is required when NYSDEC
determines that permit conditions will be needed to ensure that the Facility operates in a
manner that meets all applicable air regulations. Here, NYSDEC has determined that
conditions will be needed for the Facility. For example, NYSDEC anticipates that
conditions will include, but not be limited to: operating and process monitoring
requirements for the air pollution control equipment; and requirements for improved
odor and dust control to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and address
complaints from the community.

The NYSDEC says it is aware of Baskin Livestock’s concerns about timing and recommends that Baskin
Livestock submit a complete ASF application as soon as possible.
The NYSDEC advised this is their final decision regarding the need for an ASF permit for the
Facility.

Previously: BATAVIA/Baskin Livestock owner presents plan to rebuild animal food processing plant on Howard Street after fire – Video News Service

Also received on July 11, 2025, a letter of concern from the attorneys representing Graham Manufacturing. Harter Secrest & Emery LLP submitted a letter to the City of Batavia Planning and Development Committee and Batavia Zoning Board of Appeals, complete with exhibits that included a list of fire incidents dating back to 2008, listed below.

Exhibit 3
List of Fire Incidents at Applicant’s Properties and News Articles
List of Fire Incidents at Applicant’s Properties:

1. December 2008 – 9778 Creek Road
2. June 2013 – 9778 Creek Road
3. November 2013 – 9778 Creek Road
4. September 2014 – 9778 Creek Road
5. March 2016 – 9778 Creek Road
6. November 2016 – 9778 Creek Road
7. March 2017 – 9778 Creek Road
8. Oct 2022 – 9778 Creek Road
9. Nov 2024 – 20 Howard Street
10. May 2025 – 9778 Creek Road

“While we are not categorically opposed to the Baskin Project and support responsible economic development in the City of Batavia, we remain concerned about the potential adverse environmental and public safety risks associated with the Baskin Project. We aim to be a good neighbor, but the Applicant must demonstrate that its operations will not adversely impact surrounding properties, including the Graham Facility,” according to the letter signed by Kelly A. Pronti, a partner at Harter Secrest & Emery LLP.

Pronti went on to explain Graham Manufacturing’s list of concerns in the letter:

Given the documented fire history of the prior facility, nature of the proposed use,
and the nearby manufacturing of sensitive components for the U.S. Navy, a full EIS is not
only appropriate but legally necessary. No site plan, special use permit or variance should
be granted until the SEQRA process has been properly initiated and completed.
For all the reasons stated above, we respectfully request that the Planning and
Development Committee, Zoning Board of Appeals and SEQRA Lead Agency:

1. Deny the requested area variances, as they are substantial, self-created, and pose
   unacceptable safety and operational risk;
2. Deny or condition the special use permit, unless the Applicant provides detailed
   studies and documentation demonstrating compliance with the Industrial
   Performance Standards and such documentation is review and approved by both
   the Planning and Development Committee and Wendell Engineering;
3. Deny site plan approval unless and until (a) all required variances are either denied
   or granted and (b) the Applicant submits a redesigned project that fully complies
   with the Code provisions and incorporates detailed fire, odor, dust, noise and
   environmental protections.
4. Require the Applicant to submit and obtain approval of a Dust Hazard Analysis,
   odor study, noise analysis and pest control plan.
   Page 8
5. Properly notify all involved agencies, including NYSDEC and the County Planning
   and other interested agencies.
6. Review and consider the Applicant’s prior safety and compliance history.
7. Include this letter in the official public record and ensure our concerns are
   considered during the decision-making process.
8. Require Wendell Engineering and the City of Batavia Fire Marshal to conduct a
   full review and approval of the fire suppression system and access for emergency
   services, in light of the Applicant’s history of fires and the potential fire risk posed
   by the proposed use.
9. Require the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with all applicable local, state
   and federal environmental and operational regulations, including air permits and
   sole waste handling requirements where applicable.
10. While we acknowledge that a public hearing is scheduled for July 15, the Planning
    and Development Committee and the SEQRA Lead Agency should require an
    additional public hearing before final determinations are made. Given the scale of
    the proposed project, the level of community concern, and the fact that the
    Applicant has not yet submitted any of the required documentation or technical
    studies, the current record is inadequate to support meaningful public review or
    informed discussions.
    This is not simply a local planning matter, and is a question of public safety,
    environmental responsibility, and national security. We urge the City to uphold its legal
    obligations and protect the community.

In response to Graham Manufacturing’s concerns, in a letter dated July 12, 2025, Albert G. Lyons, Jr., P.E. NEU-VELLE LLC, a design and engineering company representing the Baskin project on Howard Street, argued for the project.

“Based on our knowledge of the Baskin Livestock operations, we believe that that previous facility
maintained compliance with its operating permits and within the requirement of state and local code. In
addition, based on the review of the design of the new facility, we believe that the proposed facility will also meet or exceed all requirements of the state and local code. Therefore, the City of Batavia should grant the requested special use permit as well as site plan approval.”

“Based on our review on behalf of Baskin Livestock, we believe that the concerns referenced in the letter are unfounded and are not relevant as part of the City’s responsibilities in conducting site plan review as required by Section 190-44 of the City of Batavia Zoning Code in issuing a special use permit for the project. The City must only use factual information during this process and not unfounded accusations particularly when considering history of Baskin Livestock, Graham’s alleged national security role and vulnerability, Inappropriate Variances and Encroachments on Required Buffers, and their contention that the project fails to meet industrial performance standards.”

“As indicated, Baskin Livestock’s Howard Street facility was destroyed by a fire on November 9, 20024. At this time, the cause of the fire has not been determined by the local fire department. In addition, the fire started while the facility was no occupied nor was it in operation. Therefore, we do not believe that existing operations were the source of the fire. While we agree that the incident was serious and dangerous, the fire was always under the control of the local fire department and adjacent properties were never affected nor in jeopardy. While the letter indicates that consequences to the Graham facility could have been catastrophic both locally and nationally, no detail as to what operations of Graham’s could have been affected at the adjacent facility nor how the effects could have caused impact both locally and nationally. In addition, we disagree with the contention that Baskin Livestock has a history of incidents. Baskin Livestock has been in business in Batavia, New York for over 30 years since 1991. While there may have been incidents at their facility, they have always been under control and never affected the welfare and safety of their neighbors or employees.”

In response to setbacks, noise, odor and vibrations

Lyons went on to defend the proposed new project on Howard Street:

“The requested setback and increase lot coverage does not negatively affect Graham Corporation property to the west. In fact, the requested setbacks are to the north and east which is in the opposite direction of the Graham site. In addition, while a variance is requested for square footage, the proposed facility is approximately 10,000 smaller than the previous structure which was previously approved and permitted by the City of Batavia. Therefore, we respectfully disagree with the statement that these
proposed variances are not minor or technical and they are excessive, unnecessity, place the public and national interest in direct jeopardy, and would erode the intent of the Code. Baskin Livestock has made a significant investment in the design and future construction of their Howard Street facility as well as in the economic growth of Batavia. We disagree and are offended by the statement that the proposed rebuild will create an undesirable change to the neighborhood and be a detriment to the nearby properties.”

“Anyone who knows the area, recognizes it as an industrial setting and the proposed Baskin facility is in line with its industrial neighbors. In addition, statements that the prior use generated substantial odor, noise and dust are unfounded and without merit or proof.
In addition, we disagree with the Graham’s contention that the previous/proposed facility fails to meet industrial performance standards (Code 4 190-38) considering their own adjacent operations. While the proposed facility will produce noise, this is a zoned industrial area and the noise levels are in line with the neighboring properties, including Graham. Furthermore, the Baskin facility has never been served notice that the operations produced unacceptable noise levels. Therefore, if Baskin Livestock is to be subjected to producing evidence that their operations will be within the legal noise threshold, the same evidence should be requested from the neighboring properties including Graham Corporation. With respect to odors, similarly to the noise allegation presented above, the Baskin facility has never received citations and or formal notice that the operations produced noxious odors emanated from the former plant which affected adjacent workers and operations. Stating that these odors likely exceeded the thresholds set by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is absurd. This is also relevant to smoke, dust, dirt, and noxious gases which are all regulated under the prior operations air permit. The facility operating in complete compliance with their NYSDEC air facility registration without incident. Asking for Baskin to provide monitoring is not called for.”

“Lastly, with respect to vibration and fire safety, the previous facility has never received a complaint or violation for either. While the previous as proposed Baskin facility uses heavy machinery, alleging that this equipment causes vibrations that disrupted adjacent operations and risked damaging precision equipment vital to national defense manufacturing is only perception and unproven and furthermore never brought to the attention of Baskin Livestock. Therefore, without evidence, Baskin Livestock should not have to address whether vibrations from equipment may cause neighboring issues unless evidence proving this is even an issue. Also, while the previous facility suffered a catastrophic fire, the facility always maintained compliance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention Code and did not utilize flammable materials in its process.”