Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 08/02/1989 - COMMONWEALTH EDISON SUB STATION KENT & OAKTON PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 02, 1989 Plan Commission Members Present Members Absent John Glass , Chairman T omas Parker Fred Geinosky, Secretary Phil Knudsen George Mullen Dave Paliganoff John Meyers Nancy Czarnik Paul Ayers Staff Present A -an Boffice, Village Engineer Julie Strahl , Administrative Assistant Dawn Underhill , Administrative Intern Chairman Glass called the public hearing to order at 8:07 p.m. DOCKET 89-3: COMMONWEALTH EDISON SUB-STATION (Kent/Oakton) Others Present: Bill Darling, Area Manager - Commonwealth Edison Rolando Acosta, Attorney for the Petitioner Bill Hamilton, Engineer - Commonwealth Edison Frank Jaskowiak, Engineering-Commonwealth Edison Chairman Glass noted for the public record that the notice for the public hearing was published in the Daily Herald on July 17, 1989, and properties within 300 feet of the petitioner's property were notified. Witnesses for the public hearing were sworn in by the Plan Commission's Secretary, Fred Geinosky. Bill Darling explained to the Plan Commission that Commonwealth Edison was requesting a Special Use Permit to construct a transformer sub-station west of Kent Street and south of Oakton. Darling stressed how critical the sub-station was to meet service in the area. The main purpose of the sub-station is to relieve the overload at the Tonne and Busse Road sub-stations. Darling indicated that it is essential that the sub-station be operational by June 01, 1990 in order to meet the demand for power. As a result, they will I need to break ground by September 1989. Due to space constraints, additional capacity could not be added to either of these locations. Acosta explained that due to the height of the lines and grade differential , it could not be constructed further east of the proposed site. I - I Plan Commission Minus • August 02, 1989 Page 2 The sub-station planned for Kent and Oakton would be an unmanned facility. The sub-station would have an 8 foot chain link fence topped with barbed wire to screen the facility from the adjacent apartment complex requirements. Paul Ayers began the questioning by asking for further information as to why the sub-station could not be built east of Kent. Ayers asked Commonwealth Edison to provide a FAA report number for the aviation study which lists the restrictions of raising towers in the vicinity of O'Hare Airport. Ayers expressed his concern of electromagnetic noise from the power lines and proposed transformer to the adjacent apartment complex. Ayers read excerpts from an article concerning the hazards of electromagnetic waves. Acosta indicated that the referenced studies do not concern sub-stations. Acosta added that when the sub-station is built, the existing wood power poles will be buried along the south end of the right-of-way. George Mullen continued the questioning by asking why the Tonne Road sub-station could not be expanded. Acosta replied that there was not enough room to expand at either the Tonne or the Busse locations. John Meyers and Nancy Czarnik expressed their feeling that the sub-station, if possible, should be built east of Kent Street, further away from the apartments. Czarnik inquired whether the sub-station would meet all EPA standards. The representatives from Commonwealth Edison confirmed that the sub-station would comply with all EPA standards. Fred Geinosky asked why the expansion was necessary. Acosta replied it was necessary due to the population and industrial growth in the area and the fact that the existing sub-stations are working at full capacity now. Representatives from Commonwealth Edison explained that there is an approximate one and one half (1-1/2) mile radius in which the sub-station should be built, noting that it is prudent to locate sub-stations as close to tie-in points as possible. If the sub-station is built too far away, the cables would have to be installed under streets, and there would be a decrease in reliability of a continued power supply. I Geinosky indicated that the petitioner would have to submit verifiable proof as to why the sub-station could not be built east of the proposed site. i Geinosky reviewed staff comments with Commonwealth Edison, noting that the Village Engineer preferred that the sub-station be located east of the proposed site, as suggested by the Plan Commission. Commonwealth Edison agreed to comply with the Building I Commissioner's comments. The petitioner also agreed to install the equipment requested by the Fire Department. The Department of Public Works and the Police Department had no comments concerning the sub-station. ! Plan Commission Minus • August 02, 1989 Page 3 Chairman Glass stated that electromagnetic fields exist anywhere electricity is generated. Glass inquired as to how long the transistor lines have been there. The petitioner agreed to check on the number of years and let the Plan Commission know. Glass indicated that if the sub-station was constructed, it would not be a power generator, instead it would act as a circuit breaker. Therefore, the sub-station would not be producing any additional electromagnetic fields. Chairman Glass asked Commonwealth Edison to look into the feasibility of constructing the sub-station on the east side of Kent Street. At the conclusion of the questioning by the Plan Commission, the floor was opened to the audience for questions. An employee of a high tech firm located near the proposed sub-station asked if the sub-station would improve the electrical service in the area. The petitioner indicated that the sub-station would improve the over-all electrical service. A resident who lives in Perrie Grove Apartments (the apartments next to the proposed sub-station) stated her concern of the hazards of the electromagnetic waves that could harm the children playing in the park located near the sub-station. Commonwealth Edison stated they would look into her concerns. Chairman Glass stated that the petitioner's request would be taken under advisement and the public hearing was closed at 9:45 p.m. Chairman Glass indicated that the next meeting will be on Wednesday, August 16, and that the petitioner should be prepared to respond to all inquiries made at the public hearing. A motion was made by George Mullen for adjournment, and was seconded by Fred Geinosky. The motion passed unanimously (Knudsen, Paliganoff and Parker absent) . The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. i Respectfully submitted, 01 lu� Dawn M. Underhill Administrative Intern i rh CC: President and Board of Trustees, Chairman and Members of Plan Commission, Chairman and Members of JPZ Committee, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer i I 8/21/89