Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 05/16/1990 - ZONING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS DOCKET 90-7 PLAN COMMISSION MAY 16, 1990 Present: George Mullen, Acting Chairman Fred Geinosky, Secretary David Paliganoff Patton Feichter Paul Ayers Thomas Parker Charles Henrici Absent: John R. Glass, Chairman John Meyers Staff: Raymond R. Rummel , Administrative Assistant Alan Boffice, Director Engineering/Community Development James D. MacArthur, Fire Chief Others: Dennis J. Gallitano, Village Trustee Nancy J. Czarnik, Village Trustee Marvin Salzenstein, Consultant George Knickerbocker, Village Attorney Acting Chairman Mullen called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. i OLD BUSINESS Item A Zoning Performance Standards Text Amendment - Public Hearing Continuation from 4-16-90 (Docket 90-7) Dennis Gallitano, Village Trustee and Chairman of the JPZ Committee, j served as the petitioner. Gallitano submitted four (4) exhibits for the record, including correspondence on a grandfathering provision and correspondence on a Flammable and Combustible Material Text Amendment. I The petitioner continued presenting its case to the Plan Commission in a section by section format. 5.93 (E) , ODORS. Salzenstein discussed the fact that odors in I-1 districts should not be detectable beyond lot lines and odors in I-2 districts should not be detectable beyond the lot lines if the I-2 lot adjoins a residential or Office Transition zoned lot. Commissioner Feichter asked if the smell of baking bread is included. Salzenstein replied yes, baking bread can be a nuisance. i I i Plan Commission Ninuto • May 16, 1990 Page 2 Commissioner Henrici asked why odors generated in an I-2 district can travel into an I-1 district but odors generated in an I-1 district cannot travel into another I-1 district. Salzenstein replied that is the only way to differentiate between the uses in the two districts. Commissioner Parker asked how the odor provision, since it is subjective, would be enforced. Salzenstein replied that an odor panel would determine compliance. Chemicals have a definable odor threshold and can be examined in an objective fashion as well which would benefit any new businesses coming into the Park. Existing industries would be handled on a complaint basis. Commissioner Ayers asked if the Village wanted to regulate all odors regardless of whether they are noxious or harmless. Salzenstein replied yes. Odors are regulated because they are nuisances. Some communities, for instance, specifically exempt restaurant odors. Gallitano noted that a special use permit or a grandfathering permit can be applied for to exempt existing industries from the odor standard. Commissioner Paliganoff asked if the Director of Engineering and Community Development was drafting specific regulations on specific odor concentration levels. Alan Boffice replied that Engineering is not seeking to create specific standards. The grandfathering provision will make it incumbent upon the industrial user to determine the extent that the user is in violation of the new ordinance. Commissioner Geinosky asked how the proposed odor requirements deviate from the current regulations. Salzenstein replied that the requirements are the same for I-1 districts. The I-2 requirements were expanded to cover 0-T districts and a new section was added in order to drop the complex odor formula. Commissioner Geinosky inquired into how a firm could control odor. Salzenstein replied that a firm can use afterburners , charcoal absorbers or scrubbing solutions. It was noted that those remedies can be expensive. Commissioner Geinosky asked if any firms were in violation of the odor provision. Boffice replied that he is not aware of any firms in violation of the current or proposed standard. I Commissioner Henrici asked about stack odors. Salzenstein replied that stack odors are treated like all other odors. Boffice replied that the I-1 zoning standards are applicable in all business zoned districts, in all residentially zoned districts , and in 0-T districts. The Plan Commission entertained questions from the audience. I I Scott Ammarell , an attorney representing Greater O'Hare, indicated that his firm wants to have an expert witness testify at the June 20, 1990 meeting. I i Plan Commission Minutf • May 16, 1990 Page 3 Ammarell noted that state odor regulations are based upon the concept of nuisance. Salzenstein replied that a corporation does not want to build and operate a plant just to find that it does not meet code. That is an unreasonable burden on industry. The best approach is to have odor controls available before the plant is constructed. Ammarell noted that the odor standard is subjective because odor perception varies from person to person. Salzenstein replied that an odor panel would determine compliance. A sample of air would be presented to the panel in a clean room. Ammarell asked if the odor panel test is written into the ordinance. Salzenstein replied that it is not. Ammarell asked if any industries are in violation of the proposed odor provisions. Gallitano replied that the Village has no knowledge of any industries being in violation of the odor provision. Ammarell asked how the Village would trace an odor back to the odor' s source. Salzenstein replied that samples could be taken and analyzed by a chemist. In addition, many industries have distinctive odors. Attorney Knickerbocker pointed out that the proposed odor provisions have been in effect in the I-1 zoning district for 19 years and that the odor standard is enforceable. John Anderson, American National Can, inquired into the grandfathering proposal . Anderson opined that the proposal is not actually grandfathering because an existing use permit would be required. Gallitano replied that the grandfathering provision would grant a business the ability to continue its operations as constituted. James Hunt, Mid-America Corporation, asked under what circumstances a grandfathering permit would not be granted. Gallitano replied that the business would have to be in compliance with the current performance standards. If the business violates existing standards , the business could I petition for a variance. The meeting recessed at 9:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9: 15 p.m. .Bruce Cohen, Arrow Plastics, asked if all existing businesses are in compliance with the odor regulations. Gallitano replied that, to the best of the Village 's knowledge, there are no non-conforming uses. i Bruce Cohen then said that a small business may not be able to sell the business because a new owner would be subjected to the new, more stringent standards. James Cohen, Arrow Plastics, asked what happens if a company installs I equipment to eliminate the odor, but the odor persists . Gallitano noted i that the ordinance provides a variance procedure for hardships. I i Plan Commission Minute • May 16, 1990 Page 4 Harry Cobb, Morton, made three comments: 1) Air Pollution Control Regulation ASTM D-1391-78 is no longer valid; 2) State Statues are designed as they are because it is difficult to trace odors back to the source; and, 3) Odor studies cost $2,200 per study. Section 3.93 (F) , Airborne Toxic Matter. Salzenstein noted that this section treats both I-1 and I-2 districts the same. The allowable concentrations are consistent with State and Federal standards. Commissioner Geinosky asked if any existing uses would violate the proposed standards. Boffice replied that the Village is not aware of any existing uses that would be in violation of this provision. Commissioner Geinosky asked how the present provision deviates from the current provision. Salzenstein replied that the requirements are the same. Commissioner Geinosky inquired into how a business would control an airborne toxic matter violation. Salzenstein replied that a company can control these through careful handling procedures, filters, and/or washing devices. All of which can be expensive. Commissioner Parker asked if there are any differences between the proposed ordinance and State and Federal laws. Salzenstein replied that there is a difference in that the proposed standards will expand upon the list of materials which are regulated by State and Federal law. Questions were taken from the audience. Ammarell asked where the definition of toxic matter can be found. Salzenstein replied that the definition can be found in the next section. l Rich Deluka, Morton, inquired into the time period over which measurements would be taken. Salzenstein replied that the intent is for the measurement to be taken as a 24 hour average and that such language should be included in the ordinance. Deluka stated that ACGH standards are not federal standards and that the appropriate standard to use is OSHA standards. Salzenstein replied that the request would be considered. Deluka stated that the current standards specify that 1/30th of the i level shall not be exceeded. 1/30th equals 3.3 percent. The new standard is 10 percent less at 3.0 percent. f Section 5.94, Toxic Substances. Salzenstein noted that this section pertains to toxic substances brought onto the premises of an industrial user. The definition of highly Toxic substance is the same as the Federal and State definition. Table 1 sets storage limits for these types of materials. i I I Plan Commission Minute • May 16, 1990 Page 5 Acting Chairman Mullen asked how Table 1 was developed. Salzenstein replied that he developed the Table after looking at the types of uses in Elk Grove Village. Commissioner Henrici noted that the limits appear restrictive. He inquired into the relationship between those limits and the safety of a geographic area. Salzenstein reported that the intent is to keep Highly Toxic substances to a minimum consistent with I-1 and I-2 uses. Commissioner Henrici inquired into the number of companies that might exceed the standards. Chief MacArthur stated that the Fire Department undertook an impact study in December 1989. That study indicated that 49 companies would be impacted by the proposed standards. Commissioner Henrici asked how a company would handle an open 55 gallon drum. Salzenstein replied that 55 gallons is for warehousing. If the drum is opened and the chemical goes into process, then a special use permit would be required. Commissioner Geinosky inquired into how the Village could grandfather or grant a special use to a potential health hazard. Knickerbocker noted that the potential health hazard depends upon how the material is stored, housed, and located. If quantities are limited in the future, then the Village is less likely to have a health problem. Commissioner Geinosky asked how the proposed section deviates from the present ordinance. The Plan Commission learned that the proposed section is an entirely new addition to the ordinance. I Commissioner Ayers noted that the standards did not differentiate between the degree of hazard associated with different chemicals. Salzenstein responded noting that Highly Toxic Chemicals equals a specific class of chemicals. Commissioner Parker asked how other Village's regulate Highly Toxic Chemicals. Salzenstein replied that most communities ban the use of such chemicals. f The Plan Commission entertained questions from the audience. John Anderson asked if there is a need for a section on highly toxic substances. Henrici noted that several deaths occurred in the 1980's because of the improper use of cyanide. Rich Deluka noted that OSHA standards were used in the Highly Toxic section but not in the previous section. Deluka said it is desirable to I use consistent standards. Gallitano replied that the request would be j taken under advisement. Salzenstein pointed out that the last "or" on page 28 should read "and" for clarity. I i Plan Commission Minute • May 16, 1990 Page 6 James Cohen asked how a company in the distribution business could operate with a 55 gallon limit. Salzenstein replied that the company would either have to process one drum at a time; it could handle 55 one-gallon containers; or it could petition for a special use permit. Commissioner Henrici asked how most containers of substances are shipped. Salzenstein replied that chlorine is generally shipped in 55 gallon drums. Otherwise, most of these chemicals are shipped in smaller quantities. Section 5.95, Water Pollution and Section 5.96, Fire and Explosion Hazards were handled consecutively. Salzenstein reported that water pollution standards parallel State and Federal standards. Fire and explosive hazards are regulated by the Department of Treasury and the Department of Alcohol , Tobacco, and Firearms. Table 1 increases the quantity of explosive material allowed. Table 2 limits the amount of flammable and combustible material allowed above ground in the I-2 district; however, there is no limit on the underground storage of these materials in the I-2 district. Commissioner Ayers asked how many companies would fail to be in compliance with Section 5.96. Salzenstein replied that the limitations are generous and few companies would need a special use. Chief MacArthur noted that the Fire Department is comfortable with the amounts. A Fire Department study indicates that approximately twenty-two companies would be in violation of the proposed ordinance. I Commissioner Henrici asked why companies should not be allowed to have unrestricted quantities if they can keep the material contained on their property. Salzenstein replied that 50 feet is not very far with respect to a spill . The Plan Commission entertained questions from the audience. i Scott Ammarell asked how the outdoor storage permit provision deviates i from the existing ordinance. Attorney Knickerbocker noted that the standards will be included in the flammable liquid code of the Municipal Code. I Rich Deluka noted that Table 2 references outdoor storage, not indoor storage, as is stated in the heading. In addition, Deluka asked if the proposed ordinance takes mitigating factors such as fire walls into consideration. Attorney Knickerbocker replied that it would be difficult to cover all such devices in the proposed ordinance. Those mitigating ! factors can be cited as evidence for a special use permit. i i i i Plan Commission Minutg May 16, 1990 Page 7 Upon completion of questions from the audience, Acting Chairman Mullen recessed the public hearing until 8:00 p.m. on June 20, 1990. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Raymond R. Rummel Administrative Assistant rh60490 C: Plan Commission Chairman & Members, Village President and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Director Engineering/Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Village Attorney, Park District, INDAB I I i I I i i I I I I f i I I I i