REC~VE~
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
OCT
132004
STATE OF ILLINO IS
Jo
F.
Nocita
)
No. PCB
~
Pollution Control Board
)
(Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
Vs.
Application ofGreenwood Transfer, LLC
)
for Transfer Station Local Siting
Approval in Village ofMaywood, Illinois
)
NOTICE
OF FILING
To:
See Attached
Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 13, 2004, there was caused to be filed with the
Illinois Pollution Control Board in its Clerk’s Office an original and 9 copies of the following
document which is attached hereto:
PETITION FOR REVIEW/APPEAL TO CONTEST SITING OF THE GREENWOOD, LLC
TRANSFER STATION IN MAYWOOD, IL, BY JOHN F. NOCITA.
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO before me this
13th
day ofOctober, 2004.
NOTARY PUBLIC
(c.—
~
••~ ‘OFflCL4L~~/j~g~
8~rTD. VEAl-fEy
~OT~RY PUBLIC $TATE OF L4.~4OIS
Ralph McNabb, Village
Clerk
Village ofMaywood
40 West Madison Street
Maywood, Illinois 60153
Greenwood Transfer, LLC
1201
Greenwood Avenue
Maywood, Illinois 60153
Mark R.
Sargis, Esq.
19
South LaSalle Street #1203
Chicago, Illinois 60603
SERVICE
LIST
RKS OFFICE
OCT
132004
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARDSTATE
OF ILLiNOIS
Pollution Control Board
John F. Nocita
)
)
No.PCB
)
(Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
Vs.
)
Application ofGreenwood Transfer, LLC
)
for Transfer Station Local Siting
)
Approval in Village ofMaywood,
Illinois
)
Petition for Review/Appeal to contest siting ofthe Greenwood Transfer. LLC Transfer
Station in Mavwood, IL
1.
On September
9, 2004, the Village ofMaywood, Illinois, passed and
adopted A
RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE
APPLICATION FOR LOCAL SITING APPROVAL
OF GREENWOOD TRANSFER, LLC, FOR
THE
GREENWOOD TRANSFER
STATION FACILITY TO BE LOCATED IN MAYWOOD, ILLINOIS.
A copy of
these
proceedings
and
the siting authority’s
written
approval resolution is attached hereto and
made a part hereofas Exhibit A..
2.
I am a proper petitioner pursuant to 35 Illinois Administrative Code 107.200, having
participated in the public hearing conducted by the Village ofMaywood, and having
submitted a written statement during the public comment period, specifically on July 22,
2004, a copy ofwhich is attached hereto and made a part hereofas Exhibit B, and an
individual personally and as counsel forvarious clients who may be affected by the
proposed facility.
3.
The self-serving allegations and representations ofthe applicant referencing multiple
inconsistencies in zoning and other related real estate matters impacted by the siting
should not support the substantive determination ofwhether or not Section 2214 would,
in fact, be violated and clearly should not be given greater weight than any other
information, comments, documentation and materialsbefore~the
Village ofMaywood nor
the board.
The relevant portion ofthe Village ofForest Park Official Zoning Map is
unequivocal in establishing that the relevant parcels are zoned for residential use and are
within 800
feet ofthe proposed transfer station as reflected in Exhibit C.
4.
The hearing officer correctly identified Section 415 ILCS, Section 22.14(a) as the
governing law on the issue ofthe 800-foot set-back from the nearest property zoned for
primarily residential use in this instance.
However, it is no less a matteroflaw that
Section 22.14 ofthe Act must control the siting decision and Section 39.2(g) should not
be applied so as to disenfranchise the potentially affected parties protected by Section
22.14, particularly so when the real estate concerned is not even withinthe corporate
limits ofthe siting authority.
Other than self-serving statements ofthe applicant, there is
no evidence that the affected real estate is other thanwithin the corporate limits ofthe
Village ofForest Park and zoned residential..
THEREFORE, I am requesting an appeal ofthe Village ofMaywood’s approval ofthe
application of GreenwoodTransfer, LLC forthe Greenwood Transfer Station and, when this
appeal is granted, I will be in position to further address my objections made at the public hearing
and confirmed in Exhibit B.
~lEOHN
F. NOCITA
CERTifICATE
STATE OF ILLINOIS)
)
58
COUNTY OF COOK)
I, RALPH MCNABB,
do
hereby certify that I am the duly
elected and qualified clerk
of the VILLAGE OP
MAYWOOD,
COOK COUNTY and state of ILLINOIS.
I do
further dertify that the annexed and foregoing
Resolution No.
R-04-47
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LOCAL SITING
APPROVAL OF GREENWOOD TRANSEER~
LLC FOR THE GREENWOOD
TRANSFER FACILITY
Is a true
and
correct copy passed by the PRESIDENT AND BOARD
OP TRUSTEES
ofthe VILLAGE of MAYWOOD,
at a BOARD meetings held on September 9,
2004.
I do further
certify that
the original
(of which the foregoing is a true
and correct copy)
is entrusted to my
care for safekeeping, and that I am the keeper ofthe same.
I do further certify that I am the keeper of the records,
journals, entries, ordinances and
resolutions of the said VILLAGE ofMAYWOOD.
In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my
hand and affixed the corporate seal ofthe
VILLAGE of MAYWOOD this
5th
day of October,
2004.
./
S~7IL~
RESOLUTION NaR-04-47
A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LOCAL
SITING APPROVAL OF GREENWOOD TRANSFER, LLC FOR
THE
GREENWOOD
TRANSFER FACILITY.
WIIERJLAS, on May 19,
2004, GREENWOOD
TRANSFER,
LLC
filed an application
for siting approval of a pollution control facilitywithin Maywood, Illinois for the development
ofa 1000 tons per day non-hazardous solid waste transfer station located at 1201
Greenwood
Avenue, pursuant to Section
39.2 ofthe illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
5/39.2)
(ACT); and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. CO-02-32 enacted by the Board ofTrustees ofthô Village
ofMaywood,
Cook County, Illinois establishes a procedure for pollution control facility site
approval in the Village ofMaywood, Cook County, Illinois;
and
WHEREAS, following notice, the Village
of
Maywoodheld public hearings on June
28th and June 29th, 2004, pursuant to theAct and Maywood’s Siting Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, some members ofthe Village Board ofTrustees attended part or all ofthe
public hearings and
some participated, aswell;
and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer appointed to preside over the public hearing has made
her Report and Recommendation for conditional siting approval to the Maywood Board of
Trustees, which includes the detennination that
all applicable requirements of Section 39.2 and
Maywood’s Siting Ordinance have been met, provided certain conditions are imposed, based
upon the siting application, notifications, hearings, exhibits, public comment and therecord.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD
OF TRUSTEES
OF THE
VILLAGE OF MAYWOOD,
COOK
COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
pursuant to its borne rule powers as provided by Article VII,
Section 6 ofthe illinois Constitution
and the authority under Section 39.2 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
5/39.2), that the Hearing Officer Report and Recommendation, attached hereto as Exhibit A. is
adopted by the Village ofMaywood Board ofTrustees; and
BE
IT
FURTHER RESOLVED,
that the Village ofMaywood Board
of Trustees has
jurisdiction and hereby determines that Greenwood Transfer; LLC has satisfied the applicable
criteria, subjectto the conditions set
forth
below; and
BE
IT
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village
of
Maywood Board ofTrustees
conditionally approves the request ofGreenwood Transfer, LLC for site approval for its
proposed non-hazardous solid waste transfer station, provided that the conditions are not
inconsistent with regulations ofthe Pollution Control Board or
the
terms ofany development or
operating permits approved by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
APPLICABLE
CONDITIONS:
I,
The Greenwood TransferFacility shall not receive or accept in excess ofan
annual average of 1000 tons per day ofnon-hazardous solid waste.
2.
Greenwood Transfer; LLC shall comply with the Host Conimunlty Benefit
Agreement with the Village ofMaywood dated July
21, 2003, and with those additional
agreements forbenefits referenced in testimony ofPhil Kowalski at Tr. 228-230 and as set forth
in Appendix V of the Application.
3.
The Greenwood Transfer Facility shallnot receive or accept the following
materials:
•
Regulated hazardous wastes
(as defined by Section
3.15 oftheAct)
•
Regulated and manifested special wastes
(as defined by Section
3.45
of theAct)
•
Regulated PCB material
*
Potentially infections medial waste (P1MW)
•
Liquid wastes
•
Regulated asbestos containing material
•
Radioactive wastes
•
Lead-acid (automotive) batteries
•
White goods
•
Tires
4.
The Greenwood Transfer Facility shall utilize the load, check and once-weekly
random inspection procedures referenced in the Application to screen out the
above-referenced
unauthorizedwastes.
5.
The Greenwood TransferFacility shall utilize the procedures and control
measures specified in the Application for the following:
•
Cleaning Procedures
•
Vector Control
•
Dust Control
•
Odor Control, including misting system and incorporation of an odor
neutralization system.
•
Litter Control, including charging one employee to patrol the facility
throughout the operating day to collect litter originating from the facility
or from the vehicles utilizing the facility
•
Noise Control
•
Fire Control and Prevention
•
Security
6.
Waste unloading and transfer shall only be conducted inside the transfer
building.
7.
Greenwood Transfer,
LLC shall modifythe building on the subject property
consistent with the changes specified in the Application, including but not limited to
installation ofdoors on the north side of thebuilding.
8.
At all times ofoperation, at least
1 person in the employ ofGreenwood Transfer,
LLC at the facility shallbe required to complete 40 hours ofhazard communication
training in accordance with Occupational Safety & HealthAdministration Standard
1910.1200.
9.
Prior to operation, Greenwood Transfer, LLC shall meet with the Village of
Maywood Fire Department to determine appropriate fire prevention and fire fighting
features, and shall install or utilize such features, including the location offire hydrants
on the site if or as deemed necessary by the Fire Department.
10.
Greenwood Transfer, LLC shall contract with a hazardous material management
finn to provide emergency response services to the Greenwood Transfer Facility.
11.
Except for emergencyvehicles requiring access at Legion. Street, Greenwood
Transfer, LLC shall limit site access, ingress and egress to Wilcox
Street
12.
Regarding 1~
Avenue and Wilcox Street, Greenwood Transfer, LLC shall provide
a minimum 45~foot
turning radius in the southeast corner of
if
Avenue and Wilcox Street
to adequatelyaccommodate the transfer trailer trucks turning northbound to eastbound
onto Wilcox Street consistent with Exhibit
8 ofthetraffic
report in the Application.
This
improvement will require the existing fire hydrant in the southeast cornerofthe
intersection to be relocated.
13.
Greenwood Transfer, LLC shall cooperate and assist the Village in:
•
Providing signagc along northbound ~
Avenue at Wilcox
Street indicating “Do
Not Block Intersection”
•
Restricting on-street parking for a minimum distance of 100 feet on both sides of
Wilcox Street.
14.
Regarding Wilcox Street ~
Greenwood and Orchard Avenues, the operations
manager(s) ofthe Greenwood Transfer Facility Shall inform and
enforce their truck
drivers to use only designated routes.
15.
Regarding FacilityAccess/Queuing,
Greenwood Transfer, LLC shall provide one
inbound and one outbound lane atthe Facility’s
access drive from Wilcox Street
consistent with the site plan as included in the application as Drawing No. D5 of the
Application.
The turning radius for trucks turning from Wilcox Street to enter or exit the
scale house area shallbe constructed adequately without having a truck encroach
on the
inbound or exit lane,
Greenwood Transfer, LLC shall provide a stop control at the
driveway ofits Facility for exiting site traffic.
Greenwood Transfer, LLC shall provide
approximately 220 feet between the Facility entrance and the scale at the scale house for
on~site
stacking of arrivingwaste collection vehicles.
16.
Greenwood Transfer5 LLC shall cooperate and assist in modifying the curb radius
in the southeast coiner of
15t
Avenue and Wilcox
Street to
accommodate transfer trailer
tracks.
17.
Greenwood Transfcr, LLC shall iniplemnent the Neighborhood Relations Program
as set out in Appendix U ofthe Application.
ADOPTED this
9TH
—
day of
SEPTEMBfl
roll call vote as follows:
2004,
pursuant
to a
AYES:NAYOR C0NNER~TRUSTEES GUZMAN, WOLL.
AND SJIARP.
NAYS: TRUSTEES PERLINS~ALEXANDER.
AWl)
WAgIlTlQcpntj
ABSENtT40
NE
APPROVED
by me this
9TH
day of
SEPTEMBER
VILLAGE C
ERK
2004.
VILLAGE PRESIDENT
1
E~hib±t
A
BEFORE THE VILLAGE OF MAYWOOJ)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
lN RE:
THE APPLICATION
)
FOR LOCAL SITING APPROVAL
)
FOR THE GREENWOOD
)
TRANSFER FACILITY
)
HEARING
OFFICER
REPORT £ND
RECOMMENDATION
B ackgrpunci
This is a matter arising under Section 39.2 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”),
415
ILCS
5/39.2,
on the Application forLocal Siting Approval for the
Greenwood
Transfer Facility filed by Greenwood Transfer, LLC
(“Applicant”) on
March 19, 2004.
Section
39.2 ofthe Act includes procedural and substantive requirements forpollution control facilitie~
undergoing the local siting review process, such as the proposed Greenwood Transfer Facility.
The Village of Maywood (“Village” or “Maywood”) also has siting requirements for pollution
control facilities within its jurisdiction,
consistent with Section 39.2 of the Act.
On November
13, 2002, the Village Board ofTrustees (“Village Board”) adopted Ordinance No. CO-02-32, an
Ordinance Establishing a Procedure for Pollution Control Facility Site Approval Requests
(“Siting Ordinance”) for the purpose ofregulating the
siting review process within the Village.
Maywood’s Siting Ordinance includes Rules and Procedures
forPollution
Control Facility Siting
which requires the hearing officer appointed to preside over the public hearings
to also provide a
written report to the Village Board.
See Article VII of the Rules and Procedures.
The Village Board’s Role
The role of the Village Board in this process is like
a judge; it serves in a quasi-
adjudicatory capacity as the trier offact to determine whether the Applicant has met the
applicable criteria.
Section
39.2(a) of the Act requires the governing board ofthe municipality in
which
the site may be located to determine whether the Applicant has submitted
sufficient details
describing the proposed facility
to demonstrate compliance with the criteria set
forth there.
Maywood’s Siting Ordinance contains the
same standards,
Therefore, although the Siting
Ordinance requires the undersigned to provide a written report, the Village Board may view the
evidence on each criterion differently; it may accept or reject the hearing officer’s report and
recommendation, in part or in whole, and may accept or reject the proposed Resolution,
granting
conditional approval, which follows,
Local siting ~
be approved if the Village Board finds that the proposed facility meets
the following criteria:
i.
the facility is necessary to
accommodate the waste needs ofthe area it is
intended to serve;
ii.
the facility is so designed, located and proposed to be
operated that the
public health, safety and welfare will be protected;
iii.
the facility is located so as
to minimize
incompatibility with the character
ofthe
surrounding area and to minimize the effect on the value ofthe
surrounding property;
iv.
(A)
for a facility other than a sanitary landfill or waste disposal site, the
facility is located outside the boundary ofthe
100-year floodplain or the
site is flood-proofed; (B)
for a facility that
is
a sanitary landfill or waste
disposal site, the facility is located outside the boundary ofthe
100-year
floodplain, or if the facility is a facility described in subsection (b)(3) of
Section 22.19a, the site is flood-proofed;
v.
the plan ofoperations for the facility is designed to minimize the danger to
the surrounding area from firc,
spills, or other operational accidents;
vi.
the traffic patterns to or from the facility are
so designed as
to minimize
the impact on existing traffic flows;
vii.
if the facility will be treating, storing or disposing ofhazardous waste,
an
emergency responseplan exists for the facility which includes notification,
containment and evacuation procedures to be used in case ofan accidental
release;
2
viii.
if the facility is to be located in a county where the county board has
adopted a solid waste management plan
consistent with the planning
requirements of the Local Solid Waste Disposal Act or the Solid Waste
Planning and Recycling Act,
the facility is consistent with that plan;
and
ix.
if the facility will be located within a regulated recharge area, any
applicable requirements
specified by the Board for such areas have been
met.
415 ILCS
§
5/39.2(a.)(i)~(ix)
(2004).
Evidence ofthe previous operating experience and past record of convictions or
admissions ofviolations of the Applicant (and any subsidiary or parent corporation)
in the field
ofsolid waste management may also be
considered when deciding criteria 2 and
5
above.
In
addition, if siting approval is granted, the Village Board may impose conditions that are
reasonable and necessary to accomplish the purposes ofthe siting law.
The imposition of
conditions has become the norm, but each condition must be supported by the record.
The record in this proceeding includes the Application for Local Siting Approval
(“Application”), exhibits of the Applicant
and ofMaywood admitted at hearing, public
comments and the transcripts ofthe
following-described public hearings.
Following notice, on
May
19, 2004, a public hearing in the nature ofa prehearing conference was held before the
Village
Board to address procedures and scheduling of the siting hearing(s),
Following notice as
required by Section
39.2 of the Act and the Siting Ordinance, on June 28, 2004 and June 29,
2004, public hearings were held to hear evidence and public comment on the Application.’
The
public hearings were held in the evenings at the request of the Village Board
in order to
maximize the
opportunity for attendance and participation by residents ofthe Village.
Following
these public hearings,
on August 6,
2004, the Applicant filed ProposedFindings.2
1
In
this report the terms “Application” and “Request” are
used synonymously.
2
A
complete list
of
the documents
comprising
the record in
this
~nafter
is being compiled
by
the bearing officer
consistent with the Siting Ordinance.
3
The Siting Ordinance allows others to participate in the public bearings as a party through
the presentation ofwitnesses, exhibits or other evidence.
Except for the Applicant, represented
by Mark Sargis, of Bellande, Cheely, O’Flaherty, Sargis
& Ayres and the Village Board,
represented by Dennis Walsh, of Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, Ltd., no others participated as a
party orpresented any testimony orwitnesses, exhibits or other evidence.
The evidence
presented by the Village related to notice ofhearing.
The role ofthe Village in this proceeding
was not inconsistent with the role ofthe decision-maker in other siting proceedings, especially
where the record shows that staff and other professionals on behalf ofthe Village participated in
a prefihing review process in which input was provided to the Applicant and incorporated in the
Applicationprior to its finalization and filing.
Oral and written comment by counsel on behalfofan undisclosed person challenged a
location standard.
As explained more fully below, the attorney’s challenge is unsupported by
evidence.
As a public conirnent, it is entitled to less weight than otherevidence.
Other than the
attorney’s
challenge to the location
standard, no witnesses testified and
no exhibits were
introduced or admitted that challenge or rebut any testimony or other evidence presented by the
Applicant.
The Applicant’s evidence on each criterion, therefore, is uncontroverted.
Numerous written and oral public comments were received throughout the proceedings.
The majority ofthose who commented orally at the public hearing support the proposed facility.
Both before and after the hearings, Ralph McNabb, the Village Clerk, made available formy
review all of the public comments received, consistent svith the
requirement for same set forth in
the Siting Ordinance.
As stated above,
no expertwitnesses directly challenged or rebutted the testimony of the
Applicant’s experts.
Therefore, since evidence was prcsented in the Application and at hearing
4
to
support each criterion, including through the testimony ofexperts, it may be legally
unsupportable for the Village Board to
find that any criterion has not been met.
The
consequences ofa decision denying siting approval under such circumstances includes the
Applicant’s option to appeal the denial
to the Illinois
Pollution Control Board (“IPCB”) with the
possible
outcome being that the decision of the Village Board could be found to be against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
See,
e.g.,
~gjnjew
Area Citizens
Task Force
v. IPCB,
198111.
App. 3d 541,
555
N.E.2d 1178 (3d Dist.
1990); Indus~p~
Fuels
& Resources
v.
IPCB, 227
Ill.
App. 3d 533, 592 N.E.2d
148 (lstDist.l992).
in the Industrial~p~~g
case, the appellate court
reversed a denial oflocal siting approval on the bases that there was no expert testimony in the
record that the proposed facility was flawed or would violate any applicable governmental
regulations.
Industrial Fuels, 227 Ill.
App. 3d at 545.
Nevertheless, the Village Board is not bound to
find that
a criterionhas been met simply
because testimony or evidence is not directly rebutted or contradictedby another witness
or other
evidence.
The Village Board may conclude that even uncontroverted evidence or testimony
is
insufficient or deficient, such as because an analysis
did not factor relevant information, is
invalid or flawed, or is otherwise not credible.
See,
e.g.,
CDT Landfill Corpo~ationy.
City of
Joliet, PCB 98-60 (March
5,
1998);
aff’d in an unpublished opinion, CDT Landfill v.
City of
Joliet,
et
a!,, No.
3-98-0248 (3d Dist.
May 5,
1999).
The Village Board may evaluate the
credibility of a witness or weigh the evidence relying upon his orher own knowledge or
familiarity with an issue, such as local conditions.
However,
the IPCB’s CDT Landfill opinion
suggests that the Village Board may not ignore its adjudicatory responsibilities as the trier offact
and considerpublic
opposition to the proposed facility to make a legislative finding denying
siting approvaL
The IFCB states instead that while consideration ofpublic comment is
S
appropriate
in considering the evidence on each criterion, public
comments are
not entitled to the
same weight as expert testimony submitted under oath and subject to
cross-examination.
Public
comments thus receive a lesser weight than expert testimony, but still must be assessed or
considered with respect to the
criteria.
Jurisdiction and N~ke
While an Applicant for local siting
approval must demonstrate compliance with the
criteria, Section 39.2 and the Siting Ordinance also requires issuance of two (2) types of notice at
two (2) stages of the siting process:
prior to
filing ofthe application and prior to
the public
hearing on an application.
The first notice is often designated “notice of the intent to file” an
application or “prefiling notice.”
Section 39.2(b) ofthe Act requires that no later than
14 days
prior to filing
a request for location approval, an Applicant must serve notice ofthe intended
filing upon certain owners ofproperties within a given distance ofthe lot line ofthe subject
property.
The same notice must be served upon members ofthe General
Assembly from the
legislative
district in which the proposed facility is located,
and must appearin
a newspaper of
general circulation published in the county in which the facility is proposed to be located.
The
prefihing notice must include information such as the name and address of the applicant, the
location of the site, the nature and size ofthe development, and a description
of the right of
persons to comment on such request,
Ifissuance and service ofthe prefihing notice does not
comport in all
respects to the requirements of law, the Village Board may not havejurisdiction
over the applicant’s request.
The Siting Ordinance specifies that only the Village Board may
determine issues ofjurisdiction.
See,
Section 6(f~.
The record in this matter showsthat atleast fourteen (14) days prior to filing the
Application, the Applicant served written notice
of
its intention to file the Application, in person
6
and
by registered mail, return receipt requested, on the owners ofall property within 400 feet of
each direction of the lot line of the subject property line,
the members ofthe Illinois General
Assembly from the Legislative District in which the property is located, and certain other
individuals
and entities as a matter of courtesy.
(Appendix B ofApplication. Lx.
1),
The
Applicant ent&ed into the record the originals ofproofofregistered mail service in compliance
with the notification requirements set forth in the Act and the Siting Ordinance.
(Lx. 4),
The
Applicant also submitted proof ofpublication in
a newspaper of general circulation published in
Cook
County ofthe Applicant’s notice ofintent
to request siting approval from the Village.
(Ex.3).
The Applicant filed its Application for Local
Siting Approval with the Village of
Maywood on March
19, 2004
(Lx.
1),
in accordance with the Applicant’s notice ofintent to file
such application, along with a filing fee in the
amount of$50,000
(Lx. 2) pursuant to Section
4(a)(iv) of the Siting Ordinance and Section 4.22 oftheHost Agreement.
Review ofthe
prefiling notice and related exhibits shows that the Applicant’s notice of intent to file was timely
and properly served and published, thus
evidencing compliance with Section
39.2(b).
In
addition, no party objected to or other&vise raised any issue regarding the prefiling notice,
The second notice required by Section 39.2(d) ofthe Act and the
Siting Ordinance
concerns notice ofhearing.
Section 39.2(d) provides in part that such hearing notice shall
be
published in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation published in the county ofthe proposed site, and
delivered by certified mail to all members of the General Assembly from the district in which the
proposed site
is located, as well as to the governing authority of every municipality contiguous to
the proposed site or contiguous to the municipality in which
the proposed site is to be located, to
the county board ofthe county where the proposed site is to be located, if the proposed site is
located
within the boundaries ofa municipality, and to the Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency (“IEPA”).
The Siting Ordinance requires the Applicant’s cooperation
with the Village
in the proper issuance of’the notice ofhearing.
In cooperation with the
Village, the Applicant
caused the Notice ofPublic Hearing on the
Application to
be pi.thlished in a newspaper ofgeneral
circulation in Cook County more than
fourteen (14) days prior to the June 28, 2004, initial hearing date, and submitted the original
proofofsuch publication
into the record.
(Lx. 7).
In addition, at least fourteen (14) days prior to
the
hearing, the Applicant delivered the Notice ofPublic Hearing by certified mail as well as in
person to all members of the Illinois General Assembly from the Legislative District
in which the
proposed site is located, to the Director of the Illinois Enviromnental Protection Agency, to the
Chairman of the Cook County Board ofCommissioners, and to all municipalities that are
contiguous to the Village of Maywood.
(Lx.
5).
At hearing, theApplicant entered into the
record the
originals ofproof ofcertified mail service in compliance with the notice ofhearing
requirements set forth in the Act and the
Siting Ordinance.
(Lx. 6).
In addition to the notices ofhearing served and published by the Applicant in cooperation
with the Village, the Village also published supplemental notices ofthepublic hearing in the
June/July edition of the Maywood News (Maywood Lx.
1) end
on the Village’s website
(Maywood Lx. 2).
Based upon the record established in this matter, the undersigned asserts that the
Applicant has satisfied
the notice and service requirements ofthe Act and the Siting Ordinance.
Accordingly, it is recommended that
the Village Board find that Section 39.2 and the notice
requirements ofthe Siting Ordinance were met
(and exceeded) and that the Village has
8
jurisdiction over the Applicant and Application so as to e~abie
the Village Trustees to render a
decision on the siting criteria.
The Propaged
Facility
The Applicant is requesting siting approval to develop a solid waste transfer station
on
property located at
1201
Greenwood Avenue in Maywood,
which would be owned by Roy
Strom Building ColToration, Inc.
(“Strom”) and operated by Greenwood Transfer, tIC.
(App.
Lx.
1
at 1).
The proposed facility which is the subject of this siting request would octupy
approximately
1.99
acres of an overall 5.64 acre property, situated
170 feet east ofGreenwood
Avenue, north of Wilcox Street in Maywood,
Cook County, Illinois.
(App.
Lx.
I at 10.).
The proposed facility “expects to process”
and is designed to accept
1,000 tons per day
(“tpd”) ofmunicipal and non-hazardous solid waste, based upon a daily waste acceptance rate of
1,000 tpd.
(App. Lx.
1
at
10).
The size ofthis transfer station
is relatively small based
on this
volume
(Tr.
252).
The proposed design calls for an approximately
1,405 square foot
addition and several
modifications
to an existing
107080 square foot building formerly used for recycling.
(App. Lx.
I at 10).
The primarymodifications to the building includes to the tipping floor and the addition
of a recessed transfer trailer loading bay.
(App. Lx.
I at 62).
The
facility will be improved with
paved access drives, internal circulation drives,
stacking lanes and parking lots,
(App. Lx.
I at
62).
Facility access and the facility entrance from Wilcox Street is described in the Application
and includes paving, widening to accommodate not only single unit waste
collection vehicles
such as 32-foot long packer trucks and roll-offtrucks, but also articulated
transfer trailer vehicles
which are
14-foot long tractors in tandem with a 48-foot long trailer,
9
Access roads will be designed~nd constructed to meet local and state requirements.
(App. Lx.
I
at
65).
W’hile all vehicles entering the facility will utilize the Wilcox Street entrance, emergency
access will also be provided when necessary through a
gated opening at the termination of
Legion Street,
(App. Lx.
1
at 62).
The transfer building will comply with all building ordinances.
Doorways ~villbe located
to minimize view ofoperations from and to direct any potential pathways for odor away from
surrounding properties.
(App. Lx.
1
at
62).
The transfer building will be equipped with
a fire-control system designed in accordance
with local requirements
and national standards.
A misting system designed to control dust
and
odors will also be installedwithin the transfer building and will include
a neutralizer to
counteract odors emanating from waste.
The transfer
facility will be fenced.
(App. Lx.
1
at
65).
Stacking space for incoming vehicles will be provided and the Application includes a
stacking analysis documenting the adequacy ofthe vehicle queuing areas.
(App. Lx.
1
at 66).
Waste operations will be conducted between 6:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday, although
maintenance and cleaning may be conducted at other times.
(App. Lx.
1
at
70).
A load checkprogram,
along with random inspections ofincoming loads
to detect
unauthorized or unpermitted wastes will be in place to help restrict regulated hazardous wastes,
regulated and manifested special wastes, regulated PCB material, potentially infectious medical
wastes, liquid wastes, regulated asbestos containing material, radioactive wastes, lead acid
(automotive) batteries, white goods and tires.
(App. Lx.
I at 70-71).
Incoming vehicles will be weighed then proceed to the transfer building, where they will
back into the tipping floor area as directed by facility personnel and unload the waste.
Waste
transfer activities will only occur inside the transfer building.
A front-end loaderwill
stockpile
10
waste materials againstpushwalls, then scoop the waste
into a waiting transfer trailer within the
recessed loading bay.
(App. Lx.
I
at 71).
After unloading their waste, collection vehicles will
drive out ofthe building and proceed south towards the exit.
When frilly loaded the transfer
trailer will be
tarped and will drive directly out of the loading bay to the exit,
(App. Lx.
I at 72).
All waste will be removed from the tipping floor at the end ofeach operating day.
If a
transfer trailer is then only partially full, it may be
tarped and parked
inside until the next
operating day when it will be
filled and then depart.
(App. Lx.
1
at 72).
The tip floor and loading bay will be cleaned,
at a minimum, ofonce atthe end ofeach
operating day.
If necessary to control odors, a pressure washer and disinfectant may also be
used.
(App.
Ex.
1 at
75).
Litter control measures include transfer only within the building; waste vehicles will be
containerized or covered and will be required to have
devices in place
to prevent moisture from
dripping onto roadways.
(App.
Lx.
1 at 76).
The facility fence and berm will aid in litter from
blowing off-site; at least one (1) employee will be cbarged with patrolling the facilitythroughout
the operating day to collect litter that escapes from the building or vehicles using the facility.
(App.
Ex. at 76).
A total of four (4) daily or up to six (6) employees are projected to run the
facility.
(App. Lx.
at 76).
L
Vector, dust and odor control are. further detailed in the Application at pages 77-78 and
includes the transfer of waste on a “first in,
first out” basis.
Personnel training will also be
required toward
this end.
The
following is a summary ofthe evidence in the Application and the hearing record on
each criterion, with commentary on the evidence.
Tbe sunrmaiy of the evidence which follows
11
is just
that, only
a highlight ofthe evidence on each criterion.
It is not intended to supplant or
supplement the post-hearing filing, the transcripts or exhibits.
CR1TEB~PN#1:SFD
Whether the facility is necessary to accommodate the waste needs ofthe area
it
is intended to serve.
Whether this criterion has been met often binges on the service area that the Applicant
intends forthe proposed facility to serve.
The service area identified by this Applicant includes
eight (8) townships in Cook County and four (4) townships in eastern DuPage County.
(App.
Lx.
1 at 23).
Defining the service area is the Applicant’s choice or prerogative under the siting
law.
The Applicant’s case on criterion #1
was presented and prepared by
Phil Kowalski, a
solid waste planner with Shaw LMCON/OWT, Inc.
(“Shaw”), who was
offered and accepted as
an expert in the field ofsolid waste planning at hearing.
(Tr.
194, 197).
Mr. ICowalski authored
the needs reportin Section
1
ofthe Application; his analysis
was based on receipt at the
proposed facility of 1,000 tons per day oftotal waste.
(App.
Lx.
I
at 22, 24).
Mr. Kowaiski identified the service area defined by the Applicant,
summarized disposal
trends within the service area, calculated the overall waste disposed by the service area (an
average daily annual quantity of slightly more than 5,100 tpd),
and calculated the disposal
capacity reasonably available to
the service area.
(Tr. 221).
In his report
and in his testimony, Mr. Kowalski concluded that the proposed service area
is currently experiencing a disposal capacity deficit, that this deficit is increased during
seasonal
fluctuations (Tr.
221, 224), and that this deficit will increase during the next several years due to
the increase in
demand for disposal capacity compared
to the anticipated supply of disposal
12
capacity within the designated service area.
His analysis includes economic factors (Tr. 223),
the history of Strom’s family business at this general
location (App.
Lx.
1
at 22), the location of
the facility as it relates to the population center (Tr.
226)
and the transportation network (Tr. at
265)
as well as the local benefits promised by the Applicant to Maywood in the Host Agreement
and as discussed with the Village and staff prior to the filing of the Application.
(Tr.
228-230;
App. Lx.
1 appendix B).
He opined
that theproposed facility is necessary to accommodate thc
waste needs ofthe area it is intended to serve.
(Jr. 231).
Mr. Kowalski testified that he has prepared need assessments such as the one prepared
here reports for other transfer stations;
need analyses uses accepted methodologies and using
such methods, he finds an immediate waste capacity deficit,
No expert countered Kowaisici’s testimony or identified any flaws in his methodology.
A
question raised by public comment was how a need for this facility exists when the proposed
facility is not deemed necessary to
serve Maywood, and when an even largertransfer
station is
located nearby in Meirose Park, within five (5) miles ofthe proposed site.
As to the transfer
station in Melrose Park, Kowalski testified that it is already nearing capacity; further that he is
aware of other transfer stations which have a five (5) mile service area and thus, tius one, too is
within range.
Acknowledged throughout the needs analyses in the Application
and testimony is that
Kowalslci’s assessment is premised on the transfer facility’s receipt of 1,000 tpd of waste.
Kowalslci demonstrated no need for a transfer station accepting more than
1,000 ~d
ofsolid
waste.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Village Board
condition siting approval on
a
maximum receipt at the proposed transfer facility ofan annual average of 1,000
~d
ofwaste.
In
addition, the Village Board
should consider conditioning its approval on this criterion
on the
13
Applicant’s compliance with the Host Agreement and tenns ofappendix B
ofthe Application,
which Kowaiski used as factors in finding a need for this transfer station.
CmTEIUON:
HEALTH. SAFETY AND WELFARE
Whether the facility is so designe~
located and proposed to he operated that
the public health, safety and welfare will be protected.
JDevin Moose of Shaw, the
lead engineer for the Applicant on this project,
testified for
criterion #2.
He was offered and
accepted as an expert in the field of solid waste planning and
solid waste facility design.
(‘Er. 4 19-420).
Mr. Moose described the existing site plan ofthe Roy
Strom operations as well as the proposed site plan, which involves the expansion of an already
existing industrial building that has been used for sorting ofrecyclable materials.
In particular,
he described the floor plan, building elevations, building cross sections,
and traffic flow pattems
within the site for the proposed operation.
Referring to the more detailed plans contained in the Application at pages 60-75 and as
described above, Devin Moose also summarized the facility’s plans for dust control, odor
control, noise control, fire control, litter control, and vector control
For example, he described
how the plans
to modify the building by installation ofthe doors to the north will help control
potential odors to the surrounding properties.
He described the load
check program for the
detection ofunpermitted and unauthorized wastes as well as the random inspection procedure, to
better insure that only non-hazardous solid wastes are accepted for transfer at the proposed
facility.
He also described the permit procedures ofthe Illinois
Environmental Protection
Agency (“ILPA”) that would apply
to the proposed facility hereafter, if local siting approval is
granted.
On the basis ofthe plans and other detailed information contained in the Application,
14
Mr. Moose gave his expert opinion that the proposed facility is designed, located and proposed
to be operated in a manner that will protect public health, safety and welfare.
(Tr. 420-421).
In addition to the Applicant’s testimony, a letterwas
submitted into the public record
from Tom Minett of Lcosorb, representing and describing the type of odor control misting
system that the Applicant will install and use to minimize odors at the facility,
While the proposed facility plans for the control of litter,
dust, odor and vectors was
detailed in the Application, public comment emphasized concern with these daily ope~ational
issues and the
adequacy of these proposals.
Therefore, the
Village Board should consider
conditioning
siting approval on eachprocedure or control measure identified in the Application
for the management of litter, dust, odor, noise and vectors such as on the following points
regarding health,
safety, welfare
and as more filly set out in the proposed Resolution:
•
removal ofwaste from and cleaning ofthe tip floor daily as described in
the Application;
•
utilization ofthe misting system described in the application including
neutralizers when necessary;
•
modification ofthe building to
install the
doors on
the north ofthe
building as described in the Application;
•
daily patrol ofthe
facility by an employee to collect litter from the facility
or vehicles using
the facility as described in the
Application;
•
tarping, covering and containerizing vehicles as described in the
Application; and
•
utilizing the Neighborhood Relations Program as described in Appendix U
ofthe Application.
Note,
also, the discussion under criterion #6 regarding trafflc and roadway conditions that
may also bear on the decision ofthe Village Board under this criterion #2.
15
çfflTERIoN #3:
REAL ESTATE
Whether the
facility
is located so
as to minimize incompatibility
with the
character of
the
surrounding area and to minimize the effect
on
the value of
surrounding property.
Christopher Lannert, principal ofthe Lannert Group, was
offered and accepted
as an
expert in the field of land use and land planning.
(Tr. 62-63).
Mr.
Lan.nert reviewed the
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance
for Maywood showingthe area encompassing the
facility to
be designated as industrial, and also reviewed zoning in the municipalities and
unincorporated portion ofCook County surroundingthe site.
(Tr. 63-64, 72-73, 76).
In
compliance with the Siting Ordinance, Mr. Lannert described the surrounding land uses within a
one-mile
study area ofthe proposed facility, as well as the land uses ofthe property immediately
surrounding the proposed facility (Tr. 64-68).
Section 22.14 flisctm~Jon
Lannart’s report in Section
3
of the Application finds that there are no residential zoned
properties located within the 800
foot set back requirement ofSection 22.14 ofthe Act.
(App.
Lx,
1
at 89).
It is this setback provision which is the subject ofthe letter and oral public
comment of counsel on behalf ofan undisclosed
client, previously referenced above.
One person presenting
oral public comment, John Nocita, identified himself as
an
attorney appearing
on behalf ofhimself and a client.
He had not registered as counsel for any
participant.
He refused to identify his client, or whether the clientwas a resident ofthe Village,
or whether the client was a person or a corporate entity, but was nevertheless allowed the
opportunity to make an oral
public conirnent.
(Tr.
189-192),
Upon questioning whether he planned on submitting
a statement in writing to make it part
ofthe public record, Mr. Nocita stated that he planned “to stand on
his
oral
statement.”
16
(Tr.
192).
During the 30-day written public comment period,
on July
27, 2004, the Hearing
Officer received a copy ofa one-page letter addressed to the Village
Clerk, sent by John Nocita
dated July 22, 2004,
which the Village Clerk also confirmed he received.
Mr. Nocita’s letter stated his “beliefthat the proposed project does not meet the minimum
setback requirements from properties zoned for residential use as established by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act, Section 22.14.”
However, Mr. Nocita admitted during oral public
comment
that he had not reviewed the residential setback documentation contained in Appendix
GoftbeApplication.
(Tr.
191).
In his letter, Mr. Nocita claimed that “within 800 feet ofthe proposed project, please note
that several lots on the north bank ofthe Des Plaines River east ofthe proposed project are zoned
R-1.”
However, he did not include a copy of any zoning map or other documentation
in the
record to support his claim, or to rebut the evidence ofthe Applicant’s compliance with the
residential setback requirement contained
in Appendix G ofthe Application, or the zoning aerial
mappresented by Christopher Lannert.
(Tr. 72-73; Ex.
9, p.
12).
Counsel for the Applicant submitted a timely
written puhlic comment letter dated July
29,
2004,
containing infonnation and supporting documentation to
directly refute the claim by Mr.
Nocita that there is any property “zoned for primarily residential uses” within 800 feet of the
boundaries of the proposed facility, within the meaning ofSection
22. 14(a) of the Act, 415
ILCS
22.14(a).
Section
22.14(a)
of the Act states as follows:
(a) No person may establish any pollution control facility foruse
as a garbage
transfer station, which is located less than
1000 feet from the nearest property
zoned for primarily residential uses or within
1000 feet of any dwelling, except in
counties of at least 3,000,000 inhabitants.
In counties of at least 3,000,000
inhabitants, no person may establish any pollution control facility for use as a
garbage transfer station which
is located less
than
1000
feet ‘from the nearest
property zoned for primarily residential uses, provided, however,
a station which
is located in an industrial area of 10 or more contiguous acres may be located
17
within 1000 feet but no closer then 800 feet from the nearest property zoned for
primarily residential uses.
However, is
a county with
over 300,000 and less than
350,000 inhabitants, a station used for the transfer or separation ofwaste for
recycling or disposal in a sanitary landfill that
is located in an industrial area of 10
or more acres may be located within 1000 feet but no closer than 800 feet from
the nearest property zoned ofprimarily residential uses.
41.5 ILCS
§
22.14(a) (2004).
Although neither Mr. Nocita noranyone
else included in the record any specific
information indicating that the facility will not meet the residential zoning setback requirement
of Section 22.14, the Applicant investigated this claim independently and found that the only
possible basis for such a claim may be due to
a current error appearing on the zoning map ofthe
Village ofForest Park, which
is the municipality located across the Des Flames Riverjust east of
the proposed facility.
As identified in the Applicant’s written comment letter, the Forest Park
zoning map identifies portions ofa few parcels as partially located on the
east side of the Des
Flames River, in the area ofwhat is considered Concordia Cemetery’s property.
According to
the Applicant’s written comment letter and supporting documentation submitted therewith, a
rezoning ofConcordia property in 2001, the historical records recorded with the Cook
County
Recorder’s Office, and the acknowledgement ofthe Cook County
Clerk
Concordia’s property is
found to
extend to the eastern edge ofthe Des Flames River and is zoned B-i
in Forest Park.
In
addition, the parcels identified as partially crossing the river are not,
in fact, within the
jurisdiction ofthe Village of Forest Park and therefore not zoned residential, but rather zoned lvi-
1
industrial within the Village ofMaywood.
Section 39.2(g) of the Act states: “The siting approval procedures, criteria and appeal
procedures provided for in this Act for new pollution control facilities shall be
the exclusive
siting procedures
and rules and appeal procedures for facilities subject to such procedures.
Local
zoning or other local land use requirements shall not be applicable to such siting decisions.”
18
further, the determination of compliance with Section 22.14
ofthe Act
is within thejurisdiction
ofthe IEPA during its
permit review,
should siting be approved.
Counsel for the Applicant
suggests
that whether or not Mr. Nocita has standing as a participant in this proceeding, either on
his own or as
an attorney for a client he refused to identify and for whom
he did not file an
appearance, is a question of law to be decided in this proceeding.
Given the documentation that
the Applicant filed in support ofits position on this issue, and the lack of supporting
documentation from Mr. Nocita, if the Village Board decides
Section 22.14 compliance, thc
undersigned recommends that the
Applicant’s posthearing comment should be given greater
weight than
that ofMr. Nqcita.
RealEstate_Ptscu~ionContinued
Lannert described the site visually from all major vantage points (Tn 6S-7l),
and
described the facility as a “facility within a facility,” screened from view from Greenwood
Avenue by the administrative building and other operations ofthe Roy Strom
businesses that
have existed
at
this location for more than 42 years
(Tr. 75-76).
Mr. Lannert opinedthat the
proposed facility is located so as to minimize
incompatibility with the character of tbe
surrounding area.
Michael McCann, President of William McCann & Associates, was offered and accepted
as an expert in the
field ofreal estate appraisal (Tr.
124-126).
Mr. McCann summarized the
results of impact
studies he conducted for property surrounding several other transfer station
locations, both industrial and residential study areas, and found that property within the
control
areas of each study did not appreciate in value more than the property within
the target area.
For example,
McCann studied the Onyx Melrose Park transfer station,
considered by
McCann
to reflect comparable circumstances to the proposed facility, in light ofboth being
19
located in west suburban
Cook County, in established areas where housing has similar price
levels and market appeal; the Onyx facility, however, has greater capacity than the
1,000 tpd
proposal here.
McCann found that the
Onyx transfer station has not had a detrimental effect on
the use, occupancy, marketability or resale value ofneighboring residential properties.
(App. Ex.
1
at 139).
In observing that there has been existing truck traffic to and from the various Roy Strom
businesses on the
Strom site, and that trucks in and out ofthe proposed facility also will only use
Wilcox and not the residential side streets, Mr. McCann described the proposed operation as
essentially an
adjunct to or expansion of the type ofuse historically already existing in that area.
(Tr.
143-144).
McCann stated that
his opinion is premised on limiting access
to the facility from
Wilcox Street.
(Tr, at
152-153).
On the basis ofhis impact studies and evaluation in other cases,
Mr. McCann opined that the proposed facility is located so as to minimize the impact on
surrounding property values (Tr.
143-144).
Given that McCann’s report
is dependant on the use
of Wilcox Street for access, the Village Board should condition siting approval upon this
restriction.
CRITERION #4:
FLOOD PLAIN
Whether the facility
is located outside the boundary of the 1O~-year
flood
plain
or the site is flood-proofed.
Devin Moose testified that the proposed site boundaries
are located completely outside
the
100-year flood plain (Tr. 421), according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
map and the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Cook County (Appendix H ofApplication).
No
person testified in opposition to the Applicant concerning criterion #4
and no public
comment
raised tius criterion as
an issue.
20
CRITERJQN#5:
OPERATIONAL PLAN
Whether the plan ofoperations for
the facility
is designed to minimize the
danger
to the surrounding area from fire, spills
or other operational
accidents.
Devin
Moose summarized the facility’s plans
for fire control and spill control, referring
to the more detailed plans contained in the Application.
Mr. Moose gave his expert opinion that
the overall plan of operations for the proposed facility is designed to minimize the danger to the
surrounding area from fire, spills or other operational accidents.
(Tr. 421).
Section
5
of the Application contains the plan ofoperations for fire,
spills and
other
operational accidents, along
with Appendix
Q,
which
is
a copy of the Health and Safety Plan for
the proposed facility.
Section
5
sets forth the personnel training to be conducted,
the protective
equipment for personnel, emergency and fire response plans and procedures, as well as fire
prevention measures.
(App. Ex.
1
at 173-175),
An extensive spill prevention and response plan is
set forth.
For example, while no
liquid
waste will be accepted, in case there is a spill, the slope ofthe tip floor is designed toward the
pusbwall rather than the doors ofthe building to better enable containment or the spill
leaving
the transfer building.
(App. Ex.
1
at
179).
The plan also references
the 3-point load check
procedure ofall incoming loads, the weekly random inspection program and the ultimate ban of
those haulers who repeatedly attempt to deliver unacceptable waste.
(App. Ex.
1
at
181).
The safety plan references that select employees
“may”
be required to complete 40 hours
oftraining in accordance with 051-IA Standards
to better enable identification ofhazardous
materials.
The Village Board should consider a condition requiring such training for select
personnel to better identii~’
hazardous materials at the facility.
In addition, the Village Board
should consider requiring the Applicant to meet with thc Maywood Fire Department to
21
determine appropriate features, including
fire hydrants if the Department deems necessary, as the
Applicant suggest it will do.
(App. Lx.
1
at
175).
It may also
consider a condition requiring the
Applicant to contract with
a hazardous material management firm to provide emergency
response services, as the Applicant proposes.
(App. Lx.
1
at 178).
Finally,
the Village Board
may also wish to require the weekly random inspection as referenced
in the Application as
condition.
CRITERION
#&
TRAFFIC
PATTERNS
Whether the traffic patterns to,
or from,
the facilIty are designed so as to
minimize the impact on
existing traffic
flOWS.
Robert Hamilton, principal ofGe~va1t-Hamilton,
Inc., who is a professional engineer and
a professional traffic operations engineer, and has served as traffic engineer for 15
municipalities, was offered and accepted as an expert in the field of traffic engineering and
evaluatioa
(Tr. 281-285).
Mr. Hamilton prepared the traffic impact report contained in Section
6 ofthe Application and testified for the Applicant for this
criterion.
In support ofthis criterion,
he testified that the facility is located conveniently to area roadways, including
less than one-half
mile from 1-290/EisenhowerExpressway; that the facility’s site traffic peak periods are offset
from the peak periods ofthe
area’s overall traffic movement;
that site-generated traffic volumes
are very low relative to existing traffic on area roadways, and that there is
no expected change in
Level ofService
on nearby intersections
due to site-generated traffic.
(Tr.
287-308; App.
Lx,
1
at
188).
Mr. Hamilton made the following recommendations to
help minimize the
facility’s
impact on traffic flows:
an intersection improvement at 1st Avenue and Wilcox Street to widen
the turning radius for incoming trucks
(R.
301-303); a restriction ofsite-generated traffic to use
22
Wilcox
Street and not use the surrounding residential streets
(R. 304);
a prohibition ofparking
along Wilcox Street within
100 feet ofthe intersection with
1st Avenue, and also along the north
side of Wilcox to the site
entrance (R.
305); and traffic control signs on
1st Avenue prohibiting
vehicles from blocking the intersection at Wilcox
(R.
306).
Mr. Hamilton gave his expert opinion that the traffic
patterns to and from the facility are
designed so as to minimize
the impact on existing traffic
flows, particularly considering the
Applicant’s willingness to undertake the
recommended traffic improvement.
(Tr.
30S-309).
The Applicant also
agreed to make certain repairs along Wilcox Street and contribute
toward the cost offl.iture maintenance and repair of Wilcox, as detailed in the Applicant’s letter
to the Mayor and Village Board ofTrustees dated March
10, 2004 (Appendix V ofApplication,
“Additional Benefits Offered to the Village ofMaywood”, fix.
1;
see ri/so
Tr. 305).
Traffic concerns were clearly
a primary issue in public
comments.
More than one
resident raised traffic-related issues.
Regarding whether Wilcox
was adequate and was so
designed for the weight of the transfer-trailers, Hamilton
explainedhis study in the Application
and the exception in state law
to the weight restriction as referenced in the Application at page
195.
Hamilton testified extensively that the peak hours ofthe existing traffic
and ofthe facility
did not coincide.
(Tr.
289).
Whether a signal would not improve traffic flow, Hamilton
explained that
a signal can only be installed if required by state law and approved by the Illinois
Department ofTransportation.
Based
on general public comments regarding traffic, it appeared
residents questioned whether the finding ofwhat was described as
a minimal increase in traffic
and overall vehicle delay was credible.
It should be noted that
this criterion does not require the Applicant to demonstrate that its
facility will have ~
impacton existing traffic flow, only that it demonstrate that “the traffic
23
patterns to or from the facility are so designed as to minimize the impact on existing traffic
flows.”
One element supporting this criterion is the directional issue, that waste vehicles are
expected to and from the south,
i.e.
1-290.
However, it is also clear that Hamilton’s
opinion is
dependant upon his recommended improvements, and thus, it is recommended that the Village
Board, if siting approval is granted, condition the approval on his recommendations.
Precedent under the
siting law authorizes the decision-maker to hold an Applicant to
standards
more stringent than state regulations require,
at least under criterion #2.
See, e.g.,
McHenrv County LandfilL ~
154 Ill. App. 3d
89,
506 N.E.2d 372
(2d Dist.
1987).
It
is not knOwn whether this same analyses would apply in the context oftraffic.
For example,
Hamilton and the Applicant rely on
an exception in the Illinois Vehicle Code to suggest that the
weight limits
on Wilcox and Madison
are adequate for the transfer trailers, even though they
have a restriction of 73,280 pounds, because the distance from 1-290 is less than one mile.
(App.
Lx.
1
at 195).
The Illinois
Vehicle Code states:
(f-2) A vehicle and load greater than 73,280 pounds in weight but not exceeding
80,000 pounds is allowed access as follows:
(1) From a Class I highway onto
any street or highway for a distance of one
highway mile for the purpose of loading, unloading, food, fuel, repairs,
and rest,
provided there is
no sign prohibiting
that access.
625
ILCS
§
5/15-il l(f-2)(1) (2004).
No precedent was found applying this exception to the loading or unloading of waste to
and from
a transfer station.
Note, too,
that where the sufficiency ofroads is a concern., rather
than traffic patterns, the local decision-maker may determine that road conditions are relevant to
criterion #2 on health, safety and welfare.
Land.~Lakes
Company
v. Randolph County Board
of Commissioners, PCB 99-69 (Sept.
21, 2000).
24
Accordingly, the Village Board may determine that this criterion has not been met if, for
example, it chooses to raise a legal question
whether the exception in tbe Illinois Vehicle
Code
applies to the facts here.
Its determination as to the sufficiency of the road conditions may also
impact its finding whether the Applicant has met criterion #2
as to health,
safety and welfare.
CRTERJQN.#7
NON HAZARDOUS
WASTE
If the
facility will be treating, storing
or disposing ofhazardous waste, an
emergency response plan exists for the
facility
which includes notification,
containment and evacuation procedures
to be used
in
case of an accidental
release.
Devin Moose ofShaw testified that the proposed facility will not accept any hazardous
waste, nor will it accept special waste, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), potentially
infectious
medical waste, liquid waste, asbestos containing material, radioactive waste, lead acid batteries,
white goods, or old tires.
(Tr. 380-38i, 423).
Because the proposed facility will not treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste, criterion
#7
is
not applicable to this Application.
Although criterion#7
is
inapplicable, in Sections 2.4
and
5
ofthe Applications the Applicant identifies a load-checking program, including a
screening program and random inspections
ofincoming loads, to
prevent hazardous waste from
entering the facility and
to
isolate any unacceptable hazardous waste for proper
disposal.
çrnTERJON
#8.:
.,
PLAN
CONSISTENCY
If the facility is
to
be located in
a
county where the County Board has
adopted a
solid waste management plan consistent with the planning
requirements of the Local Solid Waste Disposal Act or the Solid
Waste
Planning and Recycling Act, the facility is consistent
with that plan.
Phil Kowalski, a solid waste
plannerwith Shaw, was offered and accepted as an
expert in
the field of solid waste planning.
(Tr.
194,
197).
Mr. Kowaiski summarized the Cook
County
25
planning process, including the plans
adopted by Cook County and the West Cook Solid Waste
Agency, and testified that the increasing use oftransfer stations to
handle waste disposal
from
Cook
County to distant landfills is both
a trend and goal ofthe Cook County and West Cook
County solid waste plans.
(Tr. 200-203).
Mr. Kowaiski gave his opinion that the proposed facility is consistent with the solid
waste management plan adopted by Cook County, including the sub-plan adopted by the West
Cook County Solid Waste Agency
(Tr.
204-205).
Donald Storino, Executive Directorofthe West Cook Solid Waste Agency, also
offered
public comment and submitted a written comment, concluding that the proposed facility is
consistent with the West Cook agency’s current solid waste management plan,
and that
the
proposed facility will provide needed transfer capacity to both residents and businesses in the
west Cook County region and beyond.
(Tr.
49-55).
No public comment addressed criterion #8.
CRITERION #9:
REGULATED RE~CHARGE
If
the
facility will be located within a regulated recharge area, any applicable
requirements specified
by the Pollution Control Board
for such areas have
been
met.
Devin Moose testified that
this criterion is inapplicable because there is only one
regulated recharge areain the State ofIllinois,
located in Peoria County (Tr. 423;
see also
Appendix
L ofApplication).
No public comment addressed this criterion #9
or regulated
recharge areas.
Opg~rExerie~e
What is sometimes referred to as the
10th siting criteria allows
the decision-maker to
consider the applicant’s experience in solid waste management and
its compliance record in
deciding whether criteria2
and
S
have been met.
26
Roy Strom. principal ofthe Applicant as well the other Roy
Strom businesses,
testified
concerning the prior operating experience ofhimself and Roy Strom Refuse Removal Service in
the field of solid waste management,
including the 42-year history of the family businesses at
this location in Maywood.
(Tr. 31-34).
Dale Brooks, the Manager of Greenwood Transfer LLC, also testified that Roy Strom
Refuse Removal Service, with which the
Applicant’s principals are also affiliated, has operated
a
recycling facility for the past
12 years at the same location
as the proposed facility, and testified
that the owners
and principals of the Applicant and the
other Roy Strom businesses will continue
to be located on location to help make sure that the proposed facility is operated efficiently,
safely
and cleanly.
(Tr.
34-3 7).
Neither the Applicant nor any ofthe Roy Strom businesses has any past record of
convictions or admissions of liability in the field of solid waste management, as documented in
the Application.
(Tr. 390; Appendix N.3 ofApplication,
Ex.
1).
Devin Moose testified that,
as the primary consultant on the Applicant’s project, he has
more than 20 years
experience in the field of solid waste management, has been the lead
engineer for siting
15 and permitting 20 transfer stations in Illinois, and has been the reviewing
engineer on behalfof local governments evaluating siting for eight (8) other transfer stations in
Illinois,
(Tr. 374, 378).
Mr.
Moose also testified that experience of the Roy Strom busincsscs in
operating a materials recycling facility is similar to
and probably more difflcult than the
Applicant’s proposed operation ofa solid waste transfer station.
(Tn 390).
He noted that the
June 2004 edition of Waste Age Magazine
identified Roy Strom Refl2se Removal Service, Inc. as
one of the top
100 businesses in the solid waste industry.
(Tr.
391-392, 509;
Ex.
15).
27
Public comment suggested .that the Applicant’s existing business at this location has not
created noxious odors, and other such nuisance conditions (Jr.
500-502).
Accordingly, the
operator’s experience bears favorably on criteria 2 and
5.
RECOMMEiNTDATJOr~
Based on the contents ofthe entire Application
submitted by the Applicant, the testimony
presented at the public hearing, the exhibits admitted into
the record, the
oral and written public
comments received into the record, and the Applicant’s Proposed Findings, the undersigned
respectfully recommends that the Village of Maywood Board ofTrustees grant local siting
approval for a new non-hazardous municipal solid waste transfer station with an annual average
of 1,000
tpd. as proposed by the Applicant, subject to the conditions recommended in
the Report
and Draft Resolution,
as the Village Board deems reasonable and necessary and supported by
the
record,
An alternative Draft Resolution denying siting approval is also attached for your
consideration.
Respectfully
Submitted,
By:
-~
Christine’~’Q.ZjzI’an
Hearing Offi&r
28
JOlIN F. NOCITA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
734
N.
WELLS
CHICAGO, IL 60610
Licensed
in Illinois
and Michigan
~Ju1y
22, 2004
Mr.
Ralph
McNabb
Village Clerk
Village
of Maywood
40
F~ast
Madison
Street
Maywood, JL. 60153
RE:
Greenwood Transfer.
LLC
Dear Mr.
McNahh:
Phone:(312) 671-0474
Fax:(312)
255-3551
T
am
writing
this
letter
as
a follow
up
to my
public comments made
at the
June 28, 2004.
Local Siting Approval Hearing
for the Greenwood Transfer, LLC project.
After
reviewing
the
Application for
Local Siting Approval submitted
by Greenwood ‘Fransfer,
LLC, it is my
belief that the proposed project does not meet the minimum setback
requirements from properties zoned for residential use as established by
the Illinois
~nvironmentalProtection Act, Section
22.14.
Although the zoning map seems to
reflect real estate zoned B-I,
within
80() feet ofthe
proposed project, please note that
several
lots
on the north
hank ofthe Des Plaines River
east of the proposedproject are zoned
R-i.
By
law, this zoning designation precludes the
Greenwood Transfer,
1
.1 .C
site from being granted Local Siting Approval forthe
development ofa transfer station.
Your attention and consideration ofthese facts
is
appreciated.
C
:
Hearing
Officer,
P.O.
BOX
5776,
Springfield,
IL
62705-5576
V~er~
EL
~ u-ia A-’
ct__
VILLAGE
Of
o
100’
500’
1000’
400
500
600
AMENDED
TO
INCLUDE..
ALL
0
0
Co
THRU
DECEMBER 31,
0
0
r~-)
0
0
0
0
cC)
CONCOROtA
CEMETERY
1-4
LEGEND
R—4
LOW
DEI’4SrrY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
El-?
~
F
700
.4
.0
0
MAP
P/
Ft
0
0
N-
00
100
200
0
0
0
Co
0
0
0
Co
N-
C)
C)
N-
14
~
~
~ItI~~
~
.
1’
EVISIONS
003
i~:
~
--
-
/
-fl-a
—
T
I
300
~
/-—-~-
f
~
LI
A~
ii~
-
~
Tti~
II~\
1~LiiLi~LiiLi~
~
\i
ftE
U~II1UJIllL1~L~1~±b1
~
—-~*—
TI
\\\
~ffllI~ITh~I~
a
r
RI
0
COC~RDIA
11111
~
~
~
—_
—H
i~-—
--—li
-
—
I
I
I
I
I
--
~L~L
I
\
~
—--
—
—
~fl~~!~t:
-~
&
-
-
-
‘I
J
-
:
~
14
1
:‘
I ~
