BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
LOWE TRANSFER, INC. and
)
RECEIV
CLERK’S OFRCE
MARSHALL LOWE,
)
AUG 2 02003
Co-Petitioners,
)
STATE OF 1LUNOIS
d
)
PCB
03-22
1
pollution Control Boar
vs.
)
(Pollution Control Board
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY BOARD OF MCHENRY
)
COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
)
)
Respondent.
)
Statement of Steve Lamal
Acting Mayor on behalf of the Village ofCary
My name is Steve Lamal, and
I am
acting Mayor ofthe Village ofCary. Cary
participated actively in the proceedings on the Lowe Transfer Station before the MeHenry
County Board, and we welcome the opportunity to support the decision ofthat Board denying
siting approval. Because ofthe length ofthe record below, I will address only limited parts ofit
today, but my comments are based on the record before the County Board and are in support of
the Board’s decision on criteria 2, 3 and
5.
The proposed transfer station directly abuts the Village of Cary. The Plote family
property, a large, mostly residential development designated as residential in the official Cary
Comprehensive Plan and the subject ofplanning between the Plote family and the Village of
Cary for over a decade, immediately borders the proposed site. This development, which the
Lowe application assumed incorrectly would be industrial, is vital to the future ofthe Village of
Cary.
The existing
435
unit Bright Oaks subdivision in the Village ofCary is only 1300 feet
from the proposed transfer station. Many Bright Oaks residents, which include a high proportion
of senior citizens and young families, Tr. 69-71 (V-3-6-03), participated in opposition to the
I
Lowe site in the County hearings. Bright Oaks is a very stable, well cared for neighborhood over
30 years old. Tr. 69 (V-3-6-03). Mr. Lowe’s application claimed that a berm prevented the
Bright Oaks residents from seeing the transfer station site. Pictures and testimony at hearing
made it clear that this was incorrect. The proposed station site sits on high ground directly west
ofBright Oaks and is very visible, directly impacting the Bright Oaks neighbors. Cary Ex. 18,
Appendix No. 10.
Other sensitive areas near or bordering the site include a proposed commercial
development south ofthe site in Cary, and vitally important to the future of the Village, which
was not even considered by Mr. Lowe’s application. Besides the nearby residential and
commercial uses the Lowe site will also impact the McHenry County Conservation District
Hollows conservation property bordering the site to the west. Mr. Lowe’s application simply
dismissed this area as industrial, its original zoning, even though it has been reclaimed and
operated as a very popular conservation area for many years. The McHenry County
Conservation District provided its own resolution objecting to the proposed site. The Hollows is
a highly sensitive use directly abutting the site and the long entrance road to the site. Concern
for these neighboring uses was noted by the County Board Committee members in their votes
rejecting the site.
I.
The Record Demonstrates that the Proposed Transfer Station
is
Incompatible With
the Area and Will Adversely Impact Surrounding Properties
There was extensive testimony on the negative impact the station would have on
properties such as the Plote property, Bright Oaks and the Hollows in terms ofodors, noise, dust,
litter and traffic. As noted by the McHenry County Siting Committee in its vote on the
application, the concerns regarding impact were substantiated by Mr. Lowe’s own application
which included a study ofthe effect ofother transfer stations on property values. Only one
2
example could be found in the entire state where a station was sited near a residential area, Tr.
115 (111-3-6-03), and as noted by the County Committee, that study ofPrinceton Village near the
Northbrooktransfer station in Northfield Township showed a decrease in property values for
many homes, and 18 of37 homes with appreciation rates under 1, despite the fact that
appreciation rates in north suburban Cook County are generally 5-6, and Northbrook itself is
16.
Tr.
45,
78, 87-88 (V-3-13-03). Princeton Village demonstrates the likelihood ofserious
impacts where residential areas are so close.
II.
The
County Correctly
Found that Neither Criteria 2 nor Criteria 5 was met because
this Transfer Station is not Located or Designed so as to Protect the Public Health,
Safety and Welfare
The Lowe site itself is very small, only 2.64 acres, leaving no room for a buffer zone.
Because of its small size, its stormwater is proposed to be infiltrated into the groundwater by an
infiltration basin. Tr. 18 (11-3-8-03) (land for detention basin is costly) Tr.
54
(111-3-6-03).
Expert testimony showed that the stormwater would carry contaminants, see e.g. Tr. 29-30 (IV-
3-3-03); Tr.
58-60
(1-3-13-03); Tr. 14 (11-3-13-03); Tr.
84-85
(1-3-3-03); Nickodem testimony
(IV-3-12-03); Tr. 9-56 (V-3-12-03), and that the groundwater into which those contaminants
would be infiltrated flows at a rapid rate directly into Lake Plote on the Plote property, Lake
Atwood on the McHenry County Conservation District property, and then to an area of wetlands
designated “irreplaceable” and “unmitigatable” by the Corps ofEngineers. Tr.
6-59
(111-3-4-03);
Tr. 5-12 (IV-3-4-03); Cary Ex. 2; Tr. 25 (1-3-3-03); Vol. I, 2-21 App. No. 5; Cary Ex. 14
(wetlands map). Mr. Lowe’s application did not identify these impacts. It didn’t even identify
the downgradient water bodies impacted by the proposed transfer station. In addition to these
flows through the infiltration basin, any spills or drips from garbage or transfer trucks on the site
access road will go to an existing stormwater pipe which discharges to the McHenry County
Conservation District. Tr. 41(1-3-4-03).
3
The County also found that Lowe had not adequately designed or proposed to operate the
site. The record is full ofsupport for that finding. The site has no sprinkler system and no
firefighting water supply. Testimony and modeling showed that the site is so small the larger
transfer trailers will not be able to turn the corners into the site or the corners into and out ofthe
transfer building. Nickodem testimony (V-3-l2-03); Cary Ex. 40. It was clear, and the Lowe
witnesses agreed, that the goal had been to try to design a transfer station onto property he
owned, not to find an environmentally good site for a transfer station. See e.g. Tr.
92-95
(1-3-8-03); Tr. 54-55 (1-3-8-03).
III.
The County Also Properly Considered Mr. Lowe’s Experience
Evidence was also presented at hearing about Mr. Lowe’s operating experience, or lack
thereof Mr. Lowe admits he has no experience. Tr. 19-20 (1-3-8-03). His operating shell
corporation, Lowe Transfer, has no experience, no employees, and no money. Tr. 51-52
(11-3-8-03). Mr. Lowe admitted at hearing that Lowe Transfer is set up to shield him from
liability if anything goes wrong. Tr.
50-51,
54 (111-3-8-03). To excuse his own lack of
experience, Mr. Lowe contended he would hire people who did have experience, such as his
consultants. Again and again, however, he overrode the statements and promises of his
consultants, casting doubt on his willingness to hire or follow expert advice (even if that could
make up for his lack ofexperience). Tr. 19-20 (11-3-8-03) (rejected consultant’s comments on
dealing with odor complaints); Tr. 6-7 (111-3-8-03) (insurance might be so costly he wouldn’t do
it); Tr. 16 (IV-3-8-03) (will not follow consultant’s recommendations on patrolling for litter); Tr.
65-67 (11-3-8-03) (despite consultant comments will not provide recycling).
Mr. Lowe currently operates a concrete and asphalt recycling facility next to the site.
Testimony showed that he does not have a permit forthat facility under Section 2 1(d) of the
Environmental Protection Act. Cary Ex. 11, App. No. 1; Cary Ex.
54;
Tr. 37 (1-3-8-03).
4
Testimony showed his operations are also not in compliance with Section 22.38 ofthe Act
regarding construction and demolition debris operations. Cary Ex. 12, App. No. 2; Tr. 30-36, 44,
53-47 (1-3-8-03). Mr. Lowe’s testimony revealed a number of activities by his current operations
which present environmental compliance issues, which Lowe was either unaware of or
unconcerned with. See e.g. Tr. 41, 69-70 (1-3-8-03); Tr. 76-77 (1-3-8-03) (taking his wastes from
site to site to burn withoutpermits or manifests); Tr. 47-48,
53-56
(1-3-8-03); Tr. 14-15 (11-3-8-
03) (allowing dumping at current site after hours without supervision); Tr. 52 (1-3-8-03)
(discharging stormwater from his current industrial site to the Hollows). Mr. Lowe has not
explained how the McHenry County Board’s consideration ofhis background and experience
with respect to criteria 2 and
5
was improper, even though his petition states that that is an
element of his appeal. The statute specifically says that background and experience are relevant
to criteria 2 and 5. Facilities like transfer stations may have serious environmental consequences
when their owners or operators don’t know what they’re doing or don’t take compliance
seriously. Mr. Lowe’s operating history raises serious doubts about his ability and interest in
operating a waste transfer station in compliance with environmental requirements.
IV.
Section 22.14 of the Act Prohibits Establishment of a Garbage Transfer Station at
the Proposed Location
Finally, the Board should note that Section 22.14 ofthe Act prohibits establishment ofa
garbage transfer station within 1000 feet ofa dwelling or property zoned residential. The Lowe
property is adjacent to the Plote property which is zoned residential. It is also only 1300 feet
from the longstanding Bright Oaks residential subdivision. Knowing of the longstanding plans
by Plote and Cary to develop the Plote property, Mr. Lowe tried to get his transfer station sited
before the Plote property could be annexed by the Village and zoned residential, Tr. 20-21 (111-3-
8-03); Tr. 90-92 (1-3-8-03); Tr. 46-47 (1-3-8-03); and the record shows he tried to get the County
5
to keep his application preparations secret. Cary Ex. 46-49,
59.
While Mr. Lowe is not always
clear about his theories, we understand from the record below that he believes that compliance,
or noncompliance, with Section 22.14 and his ability to get an IEPA permit for his proposed
facility is irrelevant in siting. We simply disagree. The immediate proximity to residential areas
is an important question which is extremely relevant under several ofthe siting criteria, including
criteria2, 3 and
5.
The County Board decision was reached after an extensive hearing which assembled a
record providing overwhelming support for its rejection ofsiting. The County Board’s decision
is clearly in accordance with law and supported by the manifest weight of the evidence and we
ask that it be affirmed.
1190553.3 03015351
6