By Suzanne LaRotonda Kowalski
Genoa Township representatives have made Genoa Township a wonderful place to live, but one poor decision could compromise that indefinitely. The rezoning request to accommodate the asphalt plant goes before the Genoa Township board on Monday, Feb. 7.
Members of the township board have said they feel comfortable with answers on their concerns that have been provided by representatives of the proposed asphalt plant. I have to ask whether they have researched or verified the information they received?
Here’s my question: Will this proposal contribute to the marketability of the vacant commercial/retail buildings along the transportation route or downwind from the plant? Will it contribute to the quality of life of nearby residents, children and businesses?
This proposed plant will degrade the environment, and odors will keep people away. Studies show asphalt plants can decrease property values.
Decreased property values would result in less tax revenue from surrounding business and residential property. When values go down, the township expenses will likely remain the same, thus they will have to increase the millage rate to compensate. Furthermore, increased traffic will damage roadways, and taxpayers will have to pay for repairs.
A delineation report submitted by ASTI shows wetlands are greater than five acres in size. NREPA Part 303 regulates wetlands 5+ acres or within 500 ft of surface water.
Stormwater runoff can contain contaminants. The proposed plan is to discharge runoff into wetlands. There are shallow water supply wells nearby and wellhead protection zones indicating the reliance on groundwater in that area.
Asphalt plants are considered a heavy industry and shouldn’t be established in areas designated for light industries. In addition, Capital Asphalt is requesting the following exceptions to ordinances:
• Doubling Dimensional Standards (Stack height)
• Hazardous Materials and Storage (Above ground 3x the allotted amount)
• Primary road width (Reductions of almost 25%)
Sadly, with the approval of higher stacks this will affect neighboring communities due to travel of emissions/carcinogens OSHA recognizes as cancer causing.
Please check the 2/7/2022 Packet for in-depth explanation on these points.
FULL RECORD – All Public CommentsHere are the questions we’ve asked that haven’t been answered yet:
1) Can you demonstrate how the proposed asphalt plant will be an asset to the community from the following perspectives. How will this facility contribute to:
• The marketability of the vacant commercial buildings that are along the transportation route of the plant?
• The marketability of vacant retail space along Grand River Avenue that is immediately downwind of the plant?
• The quality of life of residents and businesses in the immediate area? (IE. Outdoor dining at restaurants?)
2) It’s noted in the application that specifically the Livingston County Road Commissioner would benefit from the availability and cost savings.
• Does the road commission issue RFPs for capital improvement projects such as paving roads?
• Is there any guarantee that Capital Asphalt will submit the most competitive bid?
• Could you demonstrate how Capital Asphalt has lowered costs to customers in the past?
3) If this application is still in the process of being decided when the new Master Plan is adopted, will this application be re-evaluated to ensure it fits with the new goals that have been adopted, or with it just be accepted as a legal non-conforming use?
4) As the Master Plan says, “Poor planning decisions are difficult to eliminate, most linger forever. The master plan can be viewed as a community blueprint for the future, a mechanism to help ensure each decision fits as part of the whole.”
• Do you believe that the Asphalt plant proposal is conducive to the master plan and the greater good of our community?
5) Has the company provided examples, where a plant such as the one being proposed,
does have a positive impact on the economical and environmental initiatives of the
community?
6) A study performed by Blue Ridge Environmental Defense league found that having an asphalt plant near residential areas adversely impacts property. The asphalt plant does not lend itself to improving the value of residential and commercial properties in the area, how would you envision addressing potential negative impact such a facility could have on the evaluation of properties in proximity to the facility?
7) If approved, this proposal would lead to sand and gravel semi-truck traffic accelerating the deterioration of roads in the immediate area; damage that taxpayers will pay to repair. There has not been a traffic impact analysis that has been submitted.
• Will there be a traffic impact analysis completed to review?
• How will this impact Livingston County Road Commission & UPS traffic?
• Will trucks in turn take Grand River to avoid truck back up?
8) Under qualifying conditions in Article 10.02.01 Single Ownership. “The planned unit development site shall be under the control of one owner or group of owners and shall be capable of being planned and developed as one integral unit.” It is shown that one parcel is owned by an LLC while the other is owned by a corporation.
• How is single ownership defined as it pertains to this article?
9) In the application when asked about deed restrictions, it has been stated that the Applicant is currently in the process of obtaining and reviewing title commitments for the subject property. What were those findings?
10) Asphalt plants are considered a heavy industry and shouldn’t be established in areas designated for light industries. The minimum lot area to qualify for a PUD is 20 acres; this site is 16.2 however, articles state the Township Board may reduce this standard for sites served by both public water and sanitary sewer.
But what about the on-site wetlands and the setbacks in local township ordinances that pertain to the onsite wetlands? Capital Asphalt’s plan must accommodate the facility and the regulated distance for onsite stored materials and parking for all staff, do you foresee their plan still be able to meet regulations?
11) Capital Asphalt is requesting the following exceptions to other ordinances:
1. Doubling Dimensional Standards (Stack height)
2. Hazardous Materials and Storage (Above ground 3x the allotted amount)
3. Primary road width (Reductions of around 24%)
• Will all requested variances be permitted to allow this proposal to come to fruition?
12) The proposed use involving an 86’ stack, associated parking lot, site lighting, above ground hazardous fuel storage is not harmonious, will be harmful, objectionable to existing and planned future uses in the immediate area, specifically Cleary University, Gilden Woods Daycare, Namou Hotels and the planned technology park.
• Genoa Township & residents are very proud of the fact that it is home to the only institution of Higher education in the county. What has Cleary College’s feedback been on this project?
13) Wetlands are indicated on the subject site as indicated on the EGLE Wetland Viewer. The website has a disclaimer that the map is only approximate and a wetland delineation in the field must be performed by a wetland specialist; no wetland delineation has been provided in the submittals. NREPA Part 303 regulates wetlands that are 5 acres or larger or within 500 ft of surface water; as confirmed by the delineation performed by ASTI in September of 2021, the wetlands are larger that 5 acres.
• Why was this information not included in the October packet and available for public overview?
• Why does ASTI conclude in their finding and final report that the subject location is 40 acers when in the Capitals application it states the location site is 16.2 acers?
• Do you believe that wet lands are being overlooked within the township & county with many of these site plans?
14) Under Section 13 of the Genoa Township Ordinances, wetlands are regulated if they are 2 acres are larger. The township’s review of the supplied environmental studies did not mention wetlands are a potential issue. is this matter going to be closer looked at and enforced?
15) Advanced Alloys that is operating and located in the proposed site is currently violating township ordinance and does not comply with all the Salvage Yard requirements.
• How long have they been operating without any interaction/requests for action to follow the ordinance?
• Why has nothing been done to enforce the ordinances and standards that are being violated?
• When was the last inspection by the Zoning Administrator to ensure continuing compliance with the salvage yard standards?
• Should it be expected that township standards/ordinances will not be enforced or checked for compliance for the next facility that operates out of that location?
16) Groundwater quality was not properly addressed without any facts In the submittals based upon a knowledge of the hydrogeology. Stormwater runoff can contain contaminants. The proposed plan is to discharge runoff out of 2 bays into wetlands. There are shallow water supply wells nearby and wellhead protection zones indicating the reliance on groundwater in that area.
• What measures are being taken to protect and prevent wells and the water table from being potentially contaminated and polluted?
• What will be done to mitigate the risk if wells are compromised, affecting thousands of homes that get their water supply from wells?
17) In Michigan, asphalt plants typically operate April 1- Dec. 1, coincidently when people are the most active outdoors, noxious fumes and orders could be smelled miles beyond the property, interrupting enjoyment of backyards and outdoor areas, but more importantly during that time their emissions exposure is permitted up to 680,000 throughput tons that residents and visitors will be breathing into their lungs, causing mass harm to public safety.
With the approval of higher stacks, this will affect neighboring communities due to travel of emissions/carcinogens OSHA recognizes as cancer causing. The air pollutants contain elements like reactive oxygen species and heavy metals, and these components can affect the central nervous system. It can cause neuroinflammation, short-term memory disturbances, and even Parkinson’s disease.
It is well-known that regulations are so far behind what medical science informs us. Lobbyists work to keep these regulations as least cumbersome as possible on the industry.
• Are you considering the air quality and health safety impacts this proposal will have, especially the components that are not being closely monitored and regulated, if not why?
Note: Other concerns include the stockpiles of aggregate that are kept on site. Sand and gravel contain silica, a carcinogenic mineral when inhaled. It also causes silicosis. The microscopic particles (PM2.5) are the most hazardous because they can get deep into the lungs and actually pass through the lung wall and enter the bloodstream. The air quality permit granted under Part 55 of NREPA does not require the monitoring for offsite migration of airborne silica. The workers are protected under OSHA, but across the street there is NO protection. There is a criteria for airborne silica, however, asphalt plants, as well as sand and gravel mines are exempt from having to monitor under the General Permit from EGLE Air Quality Division. The silica is in addition to the other airborne contaminants released into the atmosphere.
18) An external Risk Assessment has not been done nor provided. We are concerned for the health of all residents/guests in Genoa Township and surrounding areas, as well as delicate lake ecosystems and wildlife. (Door to door health study did a report and found that nearly 50% of residence that live within a ½ mile had a noticeable decline in their health once the asphalt operations began.
• Have you researched the number of how many people will be detrimentally impacted within the first ½ mile, including the number of Genoa Township’s residence that live within the first ½ mile, children and students that attend educational programs within the first ½ mile and surrounding workforce/employees within the first ½ mile that will be severely affected?
• Will a Risk Assessment be done to further evaluate and taken into consideration?
19) Would you want to live in close proximity and downwind from an asphalt plant?
20) Where is the environmental justice for the residences in subsidized housing within 1500ft of the proposed asphalt plant location.
21) What could be done to help you make the right decision that is in the best interest of the entire community?
22) Can the townships vote be delayed until title commitments, risk assessment, traffic impact analysis and all permits required under NREPA, including Part 303, are obtained and fully reviewed?
Suzanne LaRotonda Kowalski is a Genoa Township resident
