09-27-10 Common Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 separated and sorted for future use. This piece of equipment allows this process to go th one step further and be able to sell the shredded material in bulk. This is the 4 substitute bill before the Council tonight. Mr. Deahl noted that the written commitments have been updated to include information gathered by Ms. Ann Kolata, Redevelopment Department, th 12 Floor County-City Building. She stated that the information from the Indiana Brownfield’s regarding environmental matters with the subject site before the new equipment would be installed. She stated at a public meeting at the Gertrude Street site, that as part of any “comfort letter” that may be issued by the office handling Indiana Brownfield sites would be the condition that the subject site has certain capping completed. Based on these conversations and Petitioner’s conversations with Indiana Brownfield’s, the petitioner is willing to agree to address environmental concerns, as they pertain to the subject site, in the form of commitments with the resolution. Mr. Deahl noted that protecting public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards and general welfare is the petitioner’s main goal and have developed a site plan that protects and enhances the public health, safety, comfort, moral standards and welfare. Exhibit 2 of the letter dated September 27, 2010 addressed to the South Bend Common Council is an aerial view of the subject site where to equipment will be located and distances to certain neighboring properties. The Petitioner’s site selection is unique in that it is located in a remote area of the site and is no closer than one-third of a mile to the closest improvement. In addition, the petitioner has developed a site plan which includes a 10 foot high acoustical fencing on the west and north sides of the property; construction of earth berms of ten feet high and planting of trees to the south and installation of a ten-foot high decorative brick fence along the entire east side of the property. This fencing will provide a barrier for sound and increase the overall aesthetics of the site. Mr. Deahl noted that an independent acoustical study was conducted by “Acoustics by Design.” This sound study revealed that decibel levels related to operations of the machinery on site would be between 60 and 68 decibels at 300 feet form the property line. Three hundred (300) feet from the Petitioner’s property line which is located within industrial zoned property to the west and north (which Petitioner is purchasing by virtue of the St. Joseph County Commissioner’s Tax Sale) is located in industrial zoned area to the east and to undeveloped property to the south (where the noise level is the least.) Exhibit 3 is a general example of typical noise levels, as compared with decibel ranges. The decibel range of approximately 60 in the “quiet” range and is similar to a business office with a window air conditioner at 3 feet. These levels are far less than existing noise levels on the site, which include decibel levels in excess of 100 (regarding back-up beepers), trucks and noise generated from the movement of scrap metal by crane operations. The equipment proposed to be installed does not increase any of the noise levels currently generated by machinery and equipment on site. Similarly, the operation of the proposed equipment on-site will not create any vibration which due to normal operations. Specifically, as noted in the Petition and in the Commitments, Petitioner will assure that the machinery and equipment is installed on 27 spring pads which isolates vibration. Exhibit 4 shows a portion of an isolation study provided to the Petitioner by the equipment manufacturer. The manufacturer’s study notes that 99% of any vibration is captured and eliminated by virtue of the design and spring pad isolators. The equipment will not produce noise or vibration pollution from operations. The petitioner also engaged in an air study conducted on a similar item of equipment for installation in Michigan. This study revealed that the operation of a similar scrap shredder would not cause any violation of ambient air quality standards. Mr. Deahl noted that as previously discussed the petitioner is currently committed and will continue to be committed to conducting its operation in full compliance with all federal, state and local laws, as well as going above and beyond to assure the safety of its workforce, as well as the safety of the community at large. Both the site plan and commitments set forth a strong plan to assure enhancement of public safety, health, comfort and welfare. These items are installation of two separate fire hydrants on site; construction of a designated fire lane for immediate access to the site, if needed, to be serviced by fire or other emergency personnel; construction of two separate water detention ponds, the first of which will have an impenetrable PVC liner coupled with a state of the art carbon filtration system to collect any floatables and/or other residue from water run-off; built in fire suppression systems with the machinery and equipment; compliance with recommendation from the St. Joseph County Health Department (all noted in the Commitments) regarding the complete removal of hazardous fluids and disposal of the same from vehicles prior to 23