9/14/07 A small victory for common sense...

The Environmental Concerns Commission will forward a report back to council that a recycling center is a recycling center, and that a facility that accepts construction and demolition debris is...wait for it...a facility that accepts construction and demolition debris.  Two distinct separate entities, whose purpose and function are distinct.

So they get it, and directly contradict the Plan Commissions agreement to a rigged definition provided by staff.  Of course, the Plan Commission may not understand they were being duped.  Both go back to council soon.  I'm betting the Plan Commission response gets there first.

8/25/07 Motion 2953 passed on Tuesday. 

This motion, initiated by the Legal Department of the Village, seeks the Environmental Concerns Commission’s (ECC) input with respect to the environmental impact of recycling facilities specifically including "construction and demolition debris facilities" and/or "recycling collection facilities" and how such operations conduct their business and any resulting impact to adjacent neighbors (residential or commercial).

 

Further items to consider include:

  • Where and what is the condition/location of such facilities in DuPage County?

  • What are the documented hazards/noxious fumes, if any, associated with the above facilities?

  • What are the economic benefits associated with the above facilities?

  • Are there other types of recycling facilities in DuPage County or Illinois?

This motion in no way includes review or recommendation of changes to the Village Zoning Ordinance as such is within the sole jurisdiction of the Village’s Plan Commission.

 

So we’re 8+ months down the road, but at least now the village is cognizant that a recycling collection center is not the same thing, is not interchangeable with a facility that accepts construction and demolition debris.  The ECC, according to the motion, isn’t weighing any zoning considerations, like how close should these C&D operations be to areas zoned for residential use (hint: no closer than ¼ mile).  Or maybe they can.

 

Go look at the two facilities in DuPage County.  I have them both listed on my web site.  West Chicago (about 1/3 of the way down) and Addison (all the way at the bottom of the page) have full indoor facilities that adhere to state law for being at least ¼ mile from any area zoned residential.  Plus, K-Five has a large facility in Lemont that bids on our street projects already (4,102 feet away from residential areas).  They’re dusty, noisy, sometimes smelly, with lots of heavy truck traffic all day, and usually rats too, and that’s why they’re a minimum ¼ mile away.  And they're already nearby, to the north, west, and south of us.

 

Noxious fumes are an ongoing concern of C&D facilities:

"It is also worth noting for C&D debris recycling facility operators that the presences of gypsum drywall particles in the fines screened from C&D debris could on occasion also result in H2S production. Several operators have reported that odors are present when deep piles of C&D debris fines are disturbed. Care should be taken to reuse fines only in areas where they are not prone to getting wet in the future."

"The human nose can detect H2S at relatively low concentrations (<0.1 part per million or ppm)."

Moving Forward, By Timothy G. Townsend ttown@ufl.edu 5/29/2003 edition of C&D Recycler, an industry trade publication. 

The economic benefits of having such a facility here in Downers Grove are debatable.  Not many high paying jobs, significantly accelerated road wear, noise, dust, odors, rodents.  Seeing as we already have access to facilities nearby, there's not much incentive to put one here, or so you'd think. 

Here's a website that is a good starting point for DuPage County recycling.

Here's the 2006 DuPage County Recycling Guide that lists everything DuPage County has available to residents and businesses of Downers Grove.

C&D facilities are one of those 'necessary evils'.  You can't do good things (reuse asphalt, mortar, concrete) without some bad (dirt, dust, odor, noise, heavy truck traffic, rats, etc.).  Facilities that accept construction and demolition debris are nothing like facilities that accept paper, cans, bottles, plastics- the stuff of our curbside recycling collection: that's why they're never close to where families live, and why the state Environmental Protection Act sets 1/4 mile separation distance as the de facto accepted minimum, accepted as law by every other municipality in Illinois-or at least the 270+ that I checked. 

I don't want to seem like the four points the ECC are being asked to consider are "make work" for some unknown purpose, but why would the village ask the ECC to look into "Are there other types of recycling facilities in DuPage County or Illinois?" when the county puts out a booklet answering exactly that question, on a continuing basis.  Out local government does know this.  Right?

It looks like the next ECC meeting will be on Thursday September 13.

8/10/07  It seems never to stop.  The Plan Commission is exposed to some truth, makes common sense changes, and staff immediately removes those common sense protections of residents.  Council figures out that staff was heading in the wrong direction, and put on the brakes.  So what to do, now?  How to get a bad ordinance passed when most everyone already knows it's a bad ordinance, and knows why? 

Send it to the Environmental Concerns Commission!

What's wrong with this Motion?

NOTE: Upon asking at the 8/21 VC meeting, Village Manager Cara Pavlicek said the wording is bad on the motion; that no study exists, that they are asking the ECC to study the issue.  The newspapers reported that there is a study being referred to the ECC.  Poorly written motions, poorly written ordinances, poorly written definitions all contribute to problems with the issue at hand.

The Strategic Plan that identifies Collect and Dispose Solid Waste as a core service business of the village directly refers to the garbage hauling contract, and the curbside recycling.  Staff will find this is covered ground in the following:

ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY (415 ILCS 10/) Local Solid Waste Disposal Act.

ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY (415 ILCS 15/) Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Act. 

ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY(415 ILCS 20/) Illinois Solid Waste Management Act.

They will also find yet another consistent definition of "recycling center" in 415 ILCS 15/3:

'"Recycling center" means a facility that accepts only segregated, nonhazardous, nonspecial, homogeneous, nonputrescible materials, such as dry paper, glass, cans or plastics, for subsequent use in the secondary materials market.' 

Background now has changed.  No mention of the C&D facility petition in January opposed by over 600 Cameo Condo residents.  No mention the village staff said they had no idea there was state law prohibiting exactly what they were trying to do, over the objections of almost every resident living next door.  No mention the proposed amendement was presented to the Plan Commission on May 7, via the backdoor, and without public notice.  After the Plan Commission protected residents, no mention staff ripped those protections back out and presented what they wanted in the first place; a badly written, weak ordinance. 

See my FAQ's page for what the Illinois Supreme Court lists as factors to be considered in determining the validity of a municipal ordinance.  Staff might want to read that over too. 

The second Background paragraph repeats the mistatement in the first background paragraph.  This is fabrication on the villages part.  They have been shown time and again that having zoning ordinances is not the deciding factor: it is the lack of specific requirements for a facility that accepts construction and demolition debris that triggers the separation requirements that staff seeks to remove.  Whether they be land-use, regulation, or ordinance based, they must be requirements for a C&D facility.

Outside the statement that the issue is being referred to the Environmental Concerns Commission, the second Background paragragh is completely fact free.

Summary: Further clouding of an issue that, at the state level, is law; law that village staff continues to ignore.  Why is that? 

8/10/07 An Open Letter to The Environmental Concerns Commission.

To All:

 

The village is referring to your attention the matter of recycling collection centers, and how they relate to our community.

 

This is a Trojan Horse to the real purpose, which is to pave they way for a construction and demolition debris collection facility somewhere in Downers Grove, at a location currently prohibited by state statute 415 ILCS 5/22.38.

 

I have been tracking the village on this issue since January, and it simply will not die, for what reason I can no longer fathom.

 

Since January village staff has provided biased misinformation; to the Plan Commission in January and again in May, to the Council in June and July, and to the newspaper reporters on every occassion since March.  You need to educate yourself on what they want and what they are really talking about, and what really needs to happen.

 

Check markthoman.googlepages.com.  I have been documenting village actions and reactions on this issue since day one, and have collected a substantial amount of researched and documented information.  I have investigated all claims made by staff and find no supporting evidence that any are correct steps.  In return, I have asked questions and put together proposals that have been ignored with a deafening silence from staff and council.

 

To whit: 

The Story So Far summarizes the issue up to now. 

An Open Letter to Council lays out a case for adopting, observing and adhering 415 ILCS 5 The Environmental Protection Act.

Pictures for an exhibition takes a look at some M-2 zoned areas in Downers Grove that would be available for non-conforming special use (with council approval) if the resident protections are lowered as proposed 28.1007 allows.  More important, take an overhead tour of several facilities that accept construction and demolition debris, so you know what they are, and know what that talk is really about. 

Moving Towards Solutions lays out a comprehensive update to the definition, and creates a properly relevant, robust new ordinance.

FAQ's cites my sources, legal case law references, and other background materials. 

The 6/26 Workshop Minutes are on-line.

The 7/10 Workshop Minutes are on-line.

The 5/7 Plan Commission minutes are on-line.

Here's the petition for the facility to process construction and demolition debris.  They seem hell bent and determined to jam this down the throats of all those who live next door, primarilly the senior citizens at the Cameo Condos.

 

Please protect residents of Downers Grove from the predations of village staff on this matter.  Do not let yourselves be mislead by any so-called facts village staff or others may present in support of reducing separation requirements.  A cursory look will show a false, circular logic that does not hold under even casual examination.  

 

See my webpage on ‘Moving Towards Solutions’ for an open letter sent to staff and to council weeks ago that offers up sound robust language and ordinance that would address the issue for our current times.  Ask youself: why staff is making this so complex, and drawing this out so long?

 

Then ask yourself:

 

Who does our village exist for?  For a single business that currently does not locate here because current law prohibits it?  

 

Who does our village exist for?  For our government? 

 

I respectfully ask you to consider that our village exists for us, the residents. 

 

You of the ECC have that opportunity to help protect us, just as the Plan Commission tried in May, and affirm that our village does indeed exist for us, for that greater group not of individuals, but of the whole resident population.

 

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Best Regards,

Mark Thoman