Environment             I'm from Downers Grove...

That's a straight copy of 415 ILCS 5/3.78b new. That's three, that's a wrap for now, and our local government can go back to fixing our streets and flooding.

10/16/07 Staff has 90 days to come up with two separate definitions.  I met with Village manager Pavlicek, Deputy Village Manager Fieldman, and Director of Community Development Dabareiner, and gave them what I had found from researching the topic.  Read about proper definitions in Moving Towards Solutions.

7/27/07 First, they try and abuse the rights of our senior citizens in January.  Then they try and slide it onto a council agenda in April.  Then they try and get the Plan Commssion to weaken the Environmental Protection Act in May.  Then they want the council to do the same in June.

"They" are our village government staff, and they're supposed to be working for us.  "It" is a construction and demolition debris recycling facility.  Now it's July, the C&D debris facility petition is back, and staff is stalled on it's task to update muni code.  Above is a picture of part of a facility that accepts construction and demolition debris.  Staff keeps telling council, reporters, and anyone who listens, that this is a "recycling collection facility".  It's not.  It never was, it never will be. State and federal lawmakers, lawyers, and staff understand this.  Downers Grove does not, and continues to blur definitions, regulations, and requirements that distinctly define them both.  Why is that?

Is this an issue about zoning?  Is this an issue about inappropriate non-conformning special uses? About outdated ordinances?  Bad definitions?  Lack of transparancy in local government?  Loopholes?

YES.

This issue has twisted and turned as if alive and determined to get away.  At some point, some residents, and the surrounding businesses, may pay the price with negatively impacted real estate values, dirt, noise, exess heavy truck traffic, dust pollution, rats (!), and malodor, all because the village refuses to acknowledge state law and apply it properly here in Downers Grove.  To our detriment.

• Watch this so you know what everyone is avoiding talking about.  It's a facility that accepts construction and demolition debris.
• The Story So Far and Collision Course summarizes the issue up to now.              
• An Open Letter To Council lays out a case for just adopting, observing and adhereing 415 ILCS 5 The Environmental Protection Act.  That almost happened, as the unanimously approved ordinance took out some proposal exemptions to resident separation protections.
• Pictures for an Exhibition shows 'special use' areas if the resident protections were lowered, as staff's version of  28.1007 proposed to allow.  More importantly, 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. 
• C&D Resourcescites some of my sources, mostly ones that are not right there on my different pages.  Check them for yourself. Then ask village to cite their sources. 

Friday evening the Plan Commission agenda came out containing this, an ordinance to change the definition of 'recycling collection center' to include facilities that accept construction and demolition debris.  See The Story So Far for the latest.

7/15/07 It's back... 

The petition filed 7/10/07 has the applicant listed as Echo Properties, Ltd. by James F. Russ, Jr., and the owner is identified as Joseph Anderson.  It was filed on the day the moratorium was approved.  It is for a "recycling collection facility", located at 5240 Thatcher, the same location as the same attorney and owner filed for in January.  Hmmm.  So is this in process or not?  Stay tuned.

7/13/07 Friday the 13th.  It takes a serious turn... Joseph Anderson emailed me and asked me to take down any pictures of his operation, and "issue an apology to Disposal Management Systems, Inc. for insinuating that we had something to do with the ordinance that wants to change to recycling zoning laws as you have written on May 7,2007."  I had one up here for a while, but then it seemed to me 'Fair Use' of images did him no harm.  The pictures were his, taken from his web site.  He took those down.  Then he asked me to take mine down, so I did.  I guess he doesn't want anyone seeing what kind of facility he runs.  I thought it wasn't bad compared to most of these facilities, which are a step short of a perpetual garbage dump. 

I talked with Joseph Anderson after the village council meeting where we both spoke against bad definitions and outdated ordinances.  He seems a likeable guy.  I hope I can continue to count on Mr. Anderson for opinion and input, here on this website, as this issue continues.  Mr. Anderson assures me they had nothing to do with the proposed ordinance, and says, as a matter of fact, they did not even know of its existence until the Wed. or Thurs. before the council workshop.  Had nothing to do with the ordinance?  The village keeps refering to that specific petition in January, so it seems the village thinks along those lines.  In the meantime, if Mr. Anderson wasn't informed by his lawyer that an ordinance directly effecting his type of business, and put into process because of his January petition, was being discussed, don't blame the lawyer- like I keep saying, buried deep and hard to find.

He also specifically requested I remove any pictures of his facility and vehicles.  No problem for me, but I think that's too bad for him, because his vehicles are all in pretty good condition, and the pictures of his particluar facility were some of the better ones I could find.  I suppose at some point he or his lawyer might request that I quit mentioning his company or him completely.  Too bad; like I said, seems like a nice enough guy. 

The Environmental Protection Act is the first of 28 environment acts passed to protect the environement AND residents of Illinois, from all manner of pollution.  One provision of the act is that construction and demolition debris sorting and collection transfer stations have to be at least 1/4 mile away from any residents; 1,320 feet.  That's because they are noisy, dirty, smelly, rat infested facilities that do some very grungy but needed work recycling and sorting out waste that can be reused instead of being put into a landfill.

The 6/26 Workshop Minutes are on-line.

The 7/10 Workshop Minutes are on-line.

Here's the petition for the facility to process construction and demolition debris.

7/10/07 Here's the defnition from 28.201 in our muni code that first sent our current staff off down the wrong road.

"Recycling collection facility.  A facility, limited to a building, trailer, vehicle or completely closed containers of wood, metal or masonry, designed for the purpose of receiving articles or materials which are to be transported to another location for distribution or processing, which may or may not be the principal use on the zoning lot where located.  Provided, the term "recycling collection facility" as used in this Zoning Ordinance shall not include facilities located within a structure principally devoted to another use, facilities temporarily located on a zoning lot under authority of a temporary uses, and facilities for collecting used motor oil which are necessary to an automobile service station."

Quick, draw me a picture of what this describes! I know, no can do: it's not a definition worth a dash of salt.  Back in the 1970's, THAT staff may have known what the heck this was, but it has no relevance today, that's for sure.  Notice the lack of a comma after "vehicle"; a lawyer buddy told me that's actually an error, and could mean a truck made out of wood or stone parked in your driveway can be a recycling center.

For comparison, here's some definitions from the same section that draw bright lines for differences:

• Garage, Private.  A detached accessory building or portion of the main building designed, arranged, used or intended to be used by the occupants of the premises for the storage of passenger automobiles and commercial vehicles not exceeding 1 1/2 tons capacity.
• Garage, Public.  A building other than a private garage, used for the care, incidental servicing and sale of automobile supplies, or where motor vehicles are parked or stored for remuneration, hire, or sale within the structure, but not including trucks, tractors, truck trailers, and commercial vehicles exceeding 1 1/2 tons capacity.
• Garage, Truck.  A building which is used or intended to be used for the storage of motor trucks, truck trailers, tractors, and commercial vehicles exceeding 1 1/2 tons capacity.

Same catagory, all garages, distinct decriptions of different uses.

7/3/07 Updated! Check the Muni Codes of over 80 communities, and 98 communities, on-line.  You will find our village staff and council unique in introducing distance exemptions.  Hoffman Estates and some others do use EPA based definitions in their ordinance.  No exemptions though, and no C&D facilities. New Lennox, and others allow recycling and collection centers, but notes what they are: glass, aluminum, steel, plastics.  No exemptions there either.  Even the communities that allow construction and demolition debris facilities, like Lockport, Chicago, Wesy Chicago, Addison, and Lemont, are hands off 415 ILCS The Environmental Protection Act.  No exemptions to state statute.  Zero, zip, nada.

I checked 260 muni zoning codes (including surrounding communities that don't use a outside code compiler/writer).  We are the only community in Illinois (so far) writing such an ordinance.  The village doesn't correctly define what it is regulating, doesn't make any definitions available, declines to obey state law on the matter unconditionally.  BTW, suing the village for adhering to state law is not a rewarding past time.  Ask a lawyer. 

Staff is doing an almost straight "copy and paste" of our Adult Entertainment Uses Ordinance 28.1011.  See my The story so far  page for a comparison of the two ordinances.

7/10/07 I'm at 260 and counting, and that's enough.  The winner is.....

West Chicago.  They have a C&D facility within thier boundaries, next to DuPage County Airport, at least 1,320 feet from any area zoned for residential use: ARTICLE IV. DEFINITIONS 4.1. Construction and demolition debris:  Non-hazardous materials resulting from construction, remodeling, repair and demolition of structures, buildings, roads and utilities, which material shall include, but not be limited to, bricks, concrete, other masonry material, soil, rock, wood (including painted, treated and coated wood and wood products), wall coverings, drywall, plaster, plumbing fixtures, furniture, appliances, fixtures, non-asbestos insulation, roofing shingles, other roof coverings, asphalt pavement, glass, plastics, electrical wiring and components containing non-hazardous substances, piping, metals, rebar and cardboard. 

Construction and demolition debris recycling:  The sorting, storing, stacking, separating, processing, handling, recycling, loading and unloading, and transferring of construction and demolition debris, which use shall include outside storage, including but not limited to, the storage of equipment, trucks, roll-off containers and boxes, and outside maintenance of trucks and equipment, and which activities may take place and be conducted outside of enclosed buildings. 

ARTICLE XI. MANUFACTURING 11.3-4 Special uses. (N) 

Construction and demolition debris recycling, provided that there shall be a minimum lot size of three (3) acres and the minimum district size of three (3) acres, and shall only be allowed on a parcel that is contiguous to both a railroad right of way and property that is zoned Airport Zoning District.

Now these guys know how to write definitions, and an ordinance!  And what a coincidence; definitions based on 415 ILCS5/3 DEFINITIONS.  PLUS, they observe all requirements of 415  ILCS 5/22.38, and add their own requirements on top of those that make it even more restrictive.  And our village can't do that because..... ??

6/26/07 Morton Arboretum is zoned R-3 residential.  I knew that much of the private land between Hidden Lake Forest Preserve and the Esplanade office complex is zoned R-1, but I didn't know DuPage County zoned Morton residential.  So now the request to exempt those from the 1,320 foot minimum separation distance requirement makes sense.  It's wrong, but it makes sense why the exemptions are in there.  If I were DuPage County, I might ask DG to knock off the C&D zoning language exemption talk.  Our ordinances don't apply to them, but it would be a slam dunk for county to show that state law trumps local ordinance. Because it does. 

I met before the council meeting with Mayor Sandack and commissioner Tully.  A third commissioner would have required observance of the open meetings act.  Deputy Village Manager Dave Fieldman was also in.  It was a lively discussion.  Apparantly there's a lot I don't understand.  Probably the last thing a sales rep should do is get involved in parsing the meaning of words with lawyers, but I did.  If anyone knows me, they know I have a fairly wide tonal range when I speak, and I can speak LOUD.  I did both, which probably didn't impress anyone.  

The topic at hand was the ordinance request.  I said if they started the meeting and told the audience they were removing all exemptions and obeying all provisions of the EPA without exception, I would not speak.  They were unimpressed.  Why is it when I promise NOT to speak people are not impressed?  I'm a big mouth, that should be a big deal. 

By now it should be obvious to everyone I raised a red flag and waved it pretty visibly.  When the village takes it upon themselves to meddle with state laws, especially those enacted to protect residents, that should be a call to action.  Limit yourself, I have no problem with that, and even applaud (like Sandack’s voluntary reduction of hire/fire powers over volunteers).

Reduce state guaranteed protections to all residents? Got a problem with that, and you should too.  

I don’t exactly recall, but think Dante’s “The Divine Comedy” Third Circle of Hell is being locked into a discussion of semantics and of the meaning of words with very smart lawyers, and there I was, a sales rep with no formal legal training, doing just that with two of the smartest ones here in Downers Grove. 

I have to say; even when I rose to every offered bait and became very animated, they both stayed on a very even keel.

This issue began as a non conforming special use petition (and has since morphed into a state law issue, then into a bad ordinace issue, an obsolete definitions isue, back to a zoning issue), and into a badly written copy and paste ordinance issue, mainly due to staff actions.  Those actions, it was explained to me, were being put into place to protect residents of Downers Grove by laying a solid foundation of zoning language.

I said we potentially open a backdoor to 28.1902 by specifically regulating a type of business.  It would still go through the special use permit process, but now it could be argued that it was an allowed special use.  I pointed out 415 ILCS 5/22.38, and noted that we have no zoning regulations covering the facility that section covers, construction and debris sorting and collection facilities, so we already default to the EPA rules with no exemptions. 

They said I was incorrect about 28.1902, and that this remains a special use that requires a complete permitting process as a special use.  I asked if it would not then be an allowed special use.  No.  They maintained we did have a zoning ordinance and it was 28.1007 Recycling Collection Facilities, and that it has been in place for 40 years. 

I said it’s not the same thing: C&D sorting and collection facilities first came in to existence in California in 1989 (when they finally figured out what was filling up all their landfills) and that it construction debris, and we do not have specific zoning regulations for this, and that a recycling center is not the same thing.  The existence of separate EPA regulations for such a facility, and the lack of any muni regulations specific for the same, seems to be proof; muni code does not specifically mention anything but recycling collection facilities.  So, we default to state law taking precedence.

-         Introducing exemptions that allow such a facility to be sited closer than ¼ mile significantly weaken the ¼ mile separation requirement.

-         If we must have zoning language, remove all exemptions, and simply state we was first addressed here in Illinois no sooner than 1992, more than 20 years after the phrase recycling collection center was used, and that back in January the village allowed one thing to be incorrectly called another, and that that error was not my problem.

(If you guessed I was pretty animated at this point, you'd be right.)

Yeah, maybe a bit testy on the rhetoric, but you know, it got thier attention.  There was some significant back and forth, but I stuck to the following:

-         The Environmental Protection Act specifically addresses facilities that sort and collect will observe and adhere to all rules and regulations contained in the state Environmental Protection Act.  Then we are not creating, nor are we restricting, we are obeying state law.

Mayor Sandack insisted the exemptions strengthen village ordinance, and that I was mistaken that the exemptions weaken resident protections.  I restated that he was incorrect stating reductions of distance strengthen: reductions reduce.

(If you guessed I was pretty animated at this point, you'd be right.)

We had to leave that, as neither of us was giving an inch on the point.

I kind of feel I’m operating in the dark.  There was more left unsaid by Sandack and Tully, of that I am positive.  They chose their words very carefully, where I… well, by now you know I say what’s on my mind, right?

I said I was prepared to show actual areas where the M-2 zones, in combination with the exemptions, create areas where this facility could be located and was told Tom Dabareiner, our new Village Planner, would make a thorough presentation and answer most of my questions, and I could use their map, so my presentation was not needed.  As it would have dragged me well over the allotted five minutes, I really had no reason to protest.

Near the end of our meeting the room was starting to fill up, so I think some other residents heard some of it. 

So I had a choice, read into the record my fairly wide ranging comments, or do something different.  I did something different.

I rewrote my comments as the meeting progressed, but wasn’t quite done when I got up to speak.  And when I was rewriting my comments in a rush, it occured to me, here I am following an issue as it morphs and twists and seems to have a life its own, determined to get away; maybe I should try to simply connecting the dots within the state Environmental Protection Act itself.  

I had mostly scribbled notes in the margins of crossed out pages, so I was turning pages sideways, squinting, and losing track of where I was: a total professional presentation.  But I think I made my point:  What we were discussing tonight is language- words- that weaken state law to create inappropriate buffers between a construction and demolition facility and the residentially zoned areas of Downers Grove.  We have a precedent of accepting higher law without amendment.  The National Building Code (BOCA) was adopted verbatim last year when it was updated.  We can simply do the same with the EPA.

I’ll link to the minutes when they come on-line.  I''m sure what I think I said is far more brilliant than what I really said.

After me, Susan Ross of Morton Arboretum presented a letter to council from Dr. Gerard Donnelly, President and CEO of Morton, requesting reconsideration of the proposed amendment to 28.1007.  Morton, as it turns out, is zoned R-3 residential by the county.  The village, as it turns out, did not specifically notify them of this workshop meeting.

Tom Sisal also spoke against the amendments.  He cited wording that is simply too vague, and that exact definitions need to be devised.  He was a council commissioner back during the time when council got entangled in another sticky wicket- zoning adult entertainment uses- so he has some experience in the matter of careful use of words.

Joe Anderson also spoke against the amendments.  Mr. Anderson is the owner of Disposal Management Systems, whose petition back in January started this whole ball rolling.

(I specifically point out again: this gentleman is NOT Joel Andersen the local builder.)

Tully said he was troubled by the amendment, and they needed to really think about the exemptions.  Beckman agreed with Tully.  Waldack said he wanted to know how surrounding communities deal with this issue, and asked Village Attorney Enza Petrarca to report on what she could find.  Schnell agreed it was a difficult issue, noted that a July 3rd meeting was not fair to resident participation, and asked for another workshop, and said she was kind of agreeing with Tully

Again, minutes will go up, I’ll link.  The next workshop is July 10th.

As it stands, the latest word, is 28.1007 is unresolved.

6/24/07 Our village government now feels they can reduce state enacted protections, and weaken the state Enviromental Protection Act because... well, they really don't have a GOOD reason.  I disagree and have taken up a defense of our rights as residents; you should too.  After you're finished reading up on this issue, write council members and help convince them to stand up for us voters, taxpayers, and our children, and reject all attempts to lower EPA protections of residents.  If the folks hired to run our village won't look out for our health, safety, and welfare, then council has to stand up and be counted.

This is the key provision, the main resident protection, in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act:

1,320 feet minimum separation distance from ANY residential zoned area.

There are no tollway exemptions, no Morton Arboretum exemption, no County Forest Preserve exemption, no village property, village Fire Station, or village Water Tower exemption, listed in the IEPA.  Just a minimum required separation distance of 1/4 mile. 

Keep it away from where people live.  Pretty simple.  You'd think...

6/22/07  Staff ignores unanimous Plan Commission resolution, shoves aside Environmental Protection Act:  Tollways become magical barriers to air born pollution and rotten egg odors, Morton Arboretum and Hidden Lake Forest Preserve have no protections.  

For this Tuesday's Council Workshop meeting, staff will bring before council their request to update zoning ordinance langauage.  You won't see this on the agenda.  What you will see is:

The staff recommends approval of the amendments as presented on the July 3, 2007 agenda.  The following components of the recommended ordinance should be noted:

 - The ordinance includes a separation distance of 1.320 feet as per the Plan Commission's recommendation.

 - The ordinance includes the tollway separation exemption recommended by staff (this exemption was not supported by the Plan Commission)."

"WITH RESPECT TO FILE NO. PC-18-07, MR. BEGGS MADE A MOTION THAT THE PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 28.801, 28.902, 28.906, 28.1007 AND 28.1110 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ASSOCIATED WITH PC 18-07 TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION:

SECTION 28.1007(f) SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS:

“(f) Recycling collection facility shall not be located within 1,320 feet of any property that is zoned for residential purposes pursuant to this Zoning Ordinance, or, for property located beyond the corporate limits of the Village, the zoning ordinance of the governmental entity having jurisdiction. Provided, this separation requirement shall not apply to the following:

(1) Property owned, maintained and used by the Village and used for any water tower and/or fire station.

(2) Property owned, maintained and used by the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County.

(3) Property owned, maintained and used as part of the Morton Arboretum.”

MR. WAECHTLER SECONDED THE MOTION.

AYE: MRS. RABATAH, MR. MATEJCZYK, MR. BEGGS, MR. COZZO, MR QUICK, MR. WAECHTLER, MR. WEBSTER, CHAIRMAN JIRIK

NAY: NONE

MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 8-0"

The Plan Commission rejected two staff requests:

 - That the minimum separation requirement be reduced 25% to 1,000 feet.

 - That tollways eliminate ANY distance protections.

Morton Arboretum and the DuPage County Forest Preserve were left open to a facility of this type being placed next door.

The Plan Commission did the right thing.  They said 1,320 feet, not an inch less.  They said tollways don't matter, and took that out completely.  They protected fellow residents from weakening and reducing the protections of the IEPA.  They used common sense, they followed existing law, and recommended council do the same.

Staff will bring the request before council this Tuesday, June 26.  Staff didn't like some of the Plan Commission approved changes, so they threw them out.  Thrown out and ignored: the unanimously approved Plan Commission decision that tollways eliminate ANY separation requirement.

Will council approve the reductions as recommended by staff, or approve adhering to the existing Environmental Protection Act, as recommended by the Plan Commission?  The Plan Commission acted in the best interests of the residents of Downers Grove.  Now it's council's turn.

If the folks hired to run our village won't look out for our health, safety, and welfare, then council has to stand up and be counted. 

Please email council and ask them to stand up for us residents:

Bruce Beckman bbeckman@downers.us, Sean Durkin sdurkin@downers.us, Geof Neustadt gneustadt@downers.us, Ron Sandack rsandack@downers.us, Marilyn Schnell mschnell@downers.us, Martin Tully  mtully@downers.us, William Waldack wwaldack@downers.us   

Dear Commissioner:

Regarding the 6/26/2007 Council Workshop Active Agenda f:

Please support our minimum resident protections as put into state law of the Environmental Protection Act.  Keep the minimum separation distance at 1,320 feet and do not allow tollways to act as an exemption, as there are residential areas all along the tollways that would be adversely effected.

I would also urge you to extend to Morton Arboretum and Hidden Lake Forest Preserve the same protections, and ask you to remove any exemptions regarding them as well.

Sincerely,

A resident

The FAQ's page has more, as well as below.

6/11/07 

"Daily Garbage Dump" maybe not gone: the Plan Commission's common sense...

In January of this year, the Plan Commission was petitioned to allow a special use for a "Recycling Collection Center".  Residents of Cameo Condos attended that meeting to protest because it was immediately next door to them, but it was approved 6-1 with the requirement that a traffic plan be done before being presented to council.   

• Use Home Rule as a justification for reducing requirements of state environment protection law and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency rules.

• Reduce the IEPA mandated minimum distance separation requirement between this facility and any residentiallly zoned area from 1,320 feet to 1,000 feet.

• Claim a complete exemption from ANY minimum separation distance requirement if there's a tollway between the facility and the residential area.

• Completely elinminate the minimum separation requirement with regards to Morton Arboretum and Hidden Lake Forest Preserve.

Now, any alarmists out there might think "Oh, here we go again, we're getting screwed by our local government", but there's some good news and some good guys, so keep reading all the way down please-

The following is copied directly from the pertinent documents: 

"Section 28.1007 Recycling Collection Facilities.

Earlier this year the Village was presented with a petition to locate a recycling collection facility on a property in the Ellsworth Industrial Park. The property was adjacent to the Cameo residential development. The applicant appeared in front of the Plan Commission for a public hearing in January 2007. The Plan Commission recommended approval of the petition, but received significant comment from the residential neighbors. The applicant withdrew the petition prior to Village Council consideration."

The above clearly links that the entire following special use addition to M-2 Zoning language change is for the benefit of this particular single business.  

Continuing:

Reliable Asphalt

3741 S. Pulaski, Chicago

Ph. (773) 254-1121

Material: Asphalt & concrete. 

Located at Pulaski, I-55, & Des Plaines River, Minimum 2,000 feet from residential area.

I couldn't get in here: it's strictly for heavy industrial purposes.

Vanek Bros.

3920 S. Loomis, Chicago

Ph. (773) 254-5099

Material: Asphalt & concrete.  

Almost exactly 1/4 mile east of Ashland and the nearest neighboprhood, it meets the 1,320’ IEPA minimum.