Wal-Mart Supercenter Proposal for Huntley Road and Elm
A Bad Fit for West Dundee
12 May, 2008
1. Introduction from Dundee Neighbors
2. Request for Further Study
3. Standards for Special Uses and Variances
4.Traffic Study and Parking Ratio
5. Environmental Impact
(a) Light pollution
(b) Noise pollution
(c) Storm water runoff
(d) Protected trees
6. Crime/Safety Issues
8. Trip Generation Characteristics of Free Standing Discount Superstores, ITE Journal, August, 2006 (NOT INCLUDED IN ON-LINE VERSION)
9. Conclusion
1. Introduction from Dundee Neighbors
Dundee Neighbors is a group of homeowners and residents of West Dundee and Dundee Township who have come together to promote public participation in the planning process and smart development.
In particular, we have found that the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter at Huntley & Elm fails to meet standards for Special Uses and Variances, and is therefore a poor choice for this property in particular and for West Dundee in general. Approval of the project would set a dangerous precedent in the community for highly intensive development near residential areas -- with no transitional use.
Despite claims by the petitioner that the Special Uses and Variances being sought are in the service of building a new “green” store, in fact they are being requested to save the developer (in this case, Wal-Mart itself) money and to standardize the engineering. We will demonstrate in this paper that the requests being made by Wal-Mart do not meet reasonable standards, do not serve any attempt to “compromise” and protect the community, and warrant an outright negative recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A few fixes here and there will not overcome these difficulties: they are fundamental to the petitioner’s plan.
We know that the Planning and Zoning Commission will act out of their legal and moral responsibility to ensure that the letter of the law, and in particular the standards set forth for special uses and variances, are met. Members of Village staff have communicated to residents through various channels that Wal-Mart could build “no matter what”, and that this was a “done deal.” We hope that the Planning and Zoning Commission will stay true to its legally mandated mission to: (a) hear all possible evidence both for and against the proposal; (b) suspend any decision until all possible fact gathering has taken place; (c) act in accordance with the law and their best judgment, rather than intimidation or fear; and (d) allow for comprehensive examination of all experts, testimony, and studies.
We thank you for accepting this paper into the official record and offering us equal and reasonable time to make a case in this hearing, as well as to examine witnesses and testimony.
2. Request for Further Study
Our primary request is that more time be granted for independent, third party experts to review submitted reports and testimony and in some cases conduct new studies. In particular, independent traffic and storm water impact reviews or studies need to be conducted.
Dundee Neighbors has been in contact with several certified experts who are willing to conduct reviews and studies that would provide a more balanced view of the potential impact of this store. After reviewing materials provided for the Village, we are happy with the great lengths staff went to in order to educate the petitioner as to minimum Village requirements. Nevertheless, there is no reason to now rush to an approval. We owe it to future residents and indeed future generations to make sure that we study the issue as deeply and comprehensively as possible.
Allowing for outside experts—experts not paid by the developer and without long-standing business ties to the developer—to study the proposal injures no interests and serves all parties, including the developer themselves. We therefore ask for a period of one month in order to have proper outside evaluations performed.
3. Standards for Special Uses and Variances
In this section we shall list the standards for Special Uses and Variances and demonstrate how Wal-Mart’s proposal, in general, fails to meet the standards and therefore warrants a negative recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission. Please note that the problems with the Special Uses in particular relate not to minor details but to the fundamental nature of the plan. It is also important to keep in mind that the petitioner must meet all of the standards for special uses and variances.
Special Uses
The Petitioner is requesting two Special Uses:
(1) Special Use permit to allow Outdoor Sales of Seasonal Garden Merchandise at the Wal-Mart Supercenter.
(2) Special Use to Amend Ordinance number 00-31 (Special Use for a PUD).
The Village of West Dundee’s Municipal Code establishes the Special Use with the following language:
A classification of special uses is hereby established to provide for the location of certain uses hereinafter specified which are deemed desirable for the public welfare within a given district or districts but which might have an adverse effect upon nearby properties or upon the character and future development of the district in which they are located… (10-3-4 A)
The code therefore implicitly states that the very purpose of the Special Use is to allow the Village discretion over proposals by petitioners in cases where a proposed use “might have an adverse effect” upon not just abutting properties, but “nearby” properties as well.
Granted by the ordinance that discretion, the Commission and the Board are empowered to use the potential for “adverse effect” as the framework for consideration of a Special Use.
Specifically, Chapter 12 of Title 11 of the Municipal Code lays out specific standards:
No special use permit shall be recommended…unless there is a concurring vote of a majority of all members present with a minimum of four (4) concurring votes required, based on finding of fact that:
1. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare.
The language used in this item is purposefully general, in order to allow for the greatest measure of discretion on the part of Commissioners and Trustees. Impacts from noise pollution, also discussed below, and storm water discharge could also be detrimental to “the public health” and “comfort”. In particular, we found that Wal-Mart stores in Illinois average 0.65 police complaints per day; and this includes non-24 hour stores and non-Supercenter locations. Combined with the negative self-perception of the Village demonstrated by public opposition to an unharmonious use, this proposal clearly fails this standard.
2. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted nor substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood.
Granting the PUD that will allow for construction of such a large-scale development will contribute to storm water run-off of oil and other toxins, as cited by the Soil and Water Conservation District’s Land Use Opinion dated 01 May 2008. The loss of view and increase in noise and light will clearly be “injurious to the use and enjoyment” of residences that abut the property.
The Wal-Mart plan therefore fails this standard as well.
As the petitioner, if Wal-Mart wishes to satisfy this standard, they must present sufficient evidence leading to a “finding of fact” that building a large-scale, 24-hour discount store next to single-family homes will not “substantially diminish” property values within the neighborhood. Failure to present convincing evidence of such means there has been no “finding of fact” to satisfy this standard.
As the petitioner, if Wal-Mart wishes to satisfy this standard, they must present sufficient evidence to establish as a fact that their proposal will not be “injurious to the use and enjoyment” of a large, open-space park, ingress to which is across a residential street that will become a busier cut-through street, to wit Tartans Drive. If the Commissioners are not presented with sufficient evidence to establish as a fact that “enjoyment” of Huffman Park will not be “injur[ed]” by the development of a 186,000 square foot, 24-hour discount retailer on its border, then Wal-Mart has also failed this standard, and the Special Use for a PUD should receive a negative recommendation.
3. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage or necessary facilities have been or will be provided.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress to design as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.
6. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified by the village president and board of trustees.
The petitioner is requesting eight variations from the “applicable regulations of the district”. While not explicitly constituting a failure to meet a standard, this does not demonstrate a desire by the petitioner to “conform to the applicable regulations” as stated in the Special Use standard, but rather to force the Village to conform their regulations to the petitioner’s business plan.
Variances
The petitioner is requesting eight (8) variances. While Dundee Neighbors finds that Wal-Mart fails to meet the standard for a variance in any of the requests, we will deal here only with the four requests that most egregiously fail the standards. First we will display the standards, and then demonstrate how each of the four considered variations fail.
A Variance is essentially an exception to the law. Therefore, the standards for the granting of a Variance are very high. The municipal code details the standards:
E. Standards:
1. A variation shall be recommended only if the evidence in the judgment of the zoning board of appeals sustains each of the following:
a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in that zoning district; and
b. The plight of the owner was not created by the owner and is due to unique circumstances; and
c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. For the purpose of implementing the above standards, the board of appeals in making its decision, whenever there are practical difficulties or particular hardship, shall also take into consideration the extent to which the following facts favorable to the applicant have been established by the evidence that:
a. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the regulations were strictly enforced;
b. The conditions upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning classification;
c. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property or any person through whom the applicant claims title;
d. The granting of the variation will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; or
e. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
(1) Request for a Variance to allowable Light Pole Height of 30’ (“Wal-Mart is requesting an allowable height of 42’. This increased pole height will minimize the number of poles that will be installed on the site.”)
Existing standard: “No light shall exceed 30 feet in height” 10-9-1-6 D
This request meets none of the standards, while at the same time potentially aggravating the already failed Special Use standards. Requesting higher light poles for a 24-hour retail operation means that neighboring properties will be “injur[ed]” to a greater degree, with no compelling argument as to why the petitioner should be granted the Variance. The reason given by Wal-Mart, namely that it will “minimize the number of poles that will be installed” has no relationship at all to the standards for a variance.
Since that is the sole rationale provided by the petitioner, we easily find that it fails condition 1.(a) above, that the petitioner cannot expect a “reasonable return” due to some pre-existing circumstance on the property. Either Wal-Mart is attempting to save money on light poles or fit more parking spaces into a smaller area by minimizing lighting. Neither of these constitute a hardship not of their own making. Note that this also fails 2.(d) above, in that it makes light more visible to the second floors of surrounding residences, explicitly “injurious” to those properties.
(2) Request for a Variance to allow Larger Endcap Islands and eliminate the Interior Landscape Islands. (“The Village has requested that Wal-Mart combine the landscape island required by the Zoning Ordinance into one large island. This will provide more attractive landscape islands and easier snow plow maneuverability.”)
Existing standard: “One 200 SF nonperimeter landscape island with one 3” diameter shade tree and 5 small bushes, for each 20 parking spaces.”
That this variance was requested at the behest of the Village is immaterial and has no relationship to the standards for a Variance. Commissioners are to consider the request on its own merit, and there is no pre-existing circumstance on the subject property that prohibits Wal-Mart from obeying the regulation. This request does not meet the standard for a Variance.
(3) Request for a Variance to the Parking Space Size to allow a Stall length of 18’ for both 60 [degree] and 90 [degree] parking space. (“The proposed Wal-Mart Development is providing ga parking space dimension of 9.5’ x 18’ (171 sq. ft.) for both 60 degree and 90 degree parking spaces. The zoning ordinance requires a stall dimension of 9’ x 19’ (171 sq. ft.) for 60 [degree] parking stalls and 8.5’ x 18.5’ (157.25 sq. ft.) for 90 [degree] parking stalls.
Existing standard: “A required off-street parking space shall be at least nine feet (9’) in width and at least nineteen feet (19’) in length.”
For this Variance request, the petitioner has not even bothered to provide a rationale. Unless we accept that the Village of West Dundee has created parking space regulations on arbitrary and meritless bases, this Variance request must be denied. It fails standard 1.(a) and 1.(b) above, in that the petitioner has not demonstrated how, by maintaining the extra 6” in each parking space, they will not make a “reasonable return” on this property. It fails 1.(b) as there is no “plight” highlighted in this request, and the petitioner has simply chosen to eliminate these 6”, presumably to fit more parking.
(4) Request for a Variance to the Total Square Footage of Wall Signage allowed on the Wal-Mart Supercenter. (“Due to the several components of the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter, Wal-Mart requests a variance to allow an increased amount of wall signage square footage.”)
Existing Standard: “The signage ordinance allows wall signage not to exceed 150 SF”
In this instance, the petitioner’s own rationale for the request (“Due to the several components of the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter…”) makes the argument for why they fail the standard. Condition 1.(b) above states that it must be the case that the “plight of the owner was not created by the owner”. Wal-Mart is saying that the nature of their own stores has created the “plight” (namely, that the Supercenter, through their own design, has “several components.”) The Village can hardly be expected to grant Variances to the law based solely on the convenience of the applicant. In doing so, the Village would be creating an unsustainable precedent.
4. Traffic Study and Parking Ratio
(a) Traffic Study
We will be submitting into the record a number of questions regarding potential problems with the traffic study prepared by KLOA.
(b) Parking Ratio
Although their official materials still describe the Supercenter as being 187,000 square feet, at the Public Hearing a document was distributed listing it at 186,000 square feet, and elsewhere it was listed as 183,000 square feet. As Wal-Mart is requesting a Garden Center, with storage that often ends up sitting on parking space, was this Garden Center space, which is essentially a sales space, calculated into the parking ratio?
At the Wal-Mart in East Dundee, the store regularly stores materials across parking spaces—on 1 May, 2008, no fewer than twenty parking spaces were taken up by outdoor-stored materials. Are these spaces counted towards the ratio? Or does the petitioner expect to paint the parking spaces in order to meet the requirement and then use it for another purpose?
5. Environmental Impact
In this section we will provide some evidence for the likely adverse environmental impact of the proposed Supercenter. In general, we are more concerned with a lack of independent study or information.
A. Light Pollution
Light pollution is of great concern to residents, particularly parents of young children, when looking at the environmental impacts caused by the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter and parking lot. Our understanding: Wal-Mart is planning on creating 42’ light poles, in addition to the outside lighting around the store itself, particularly in the rear of the store where good lighting is critical to avoid potential criminal or unsavory activity. The store is proposed as a 24-hour Supercenter so the lights will be on all night long causing the following to occur:
• Light trespass – is undesirable condition in which spill light, or light that falls outside of the area intended to be lighted, is cast where it is not wanted. An example of light trespass is when spill light from a streetlight or floodlight enters a window and illuminates an indoor area.
• Sky Glow – is brightening of the sky caused by outdoor lighting and natural atmospheric and celestial factors. There is also preliminary data on the negative effects of artificial lights on some plants, birds, and other organisms.
• Glare – is the sensation produced by a light within the visual field that are sufficiently greater than the light to which the eyes are adapted, which causes annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility. There are several kinds of glare, the worst of which is disability glare, because it causes a loss of visibility from stray light being scattered within the eye. Discomfort glare is the sensation of annoyance or even pain induced by overly bright sources. The sudden bright light can be uncomfortable and make it difficult to see. Discomfort and even disability glare can be caused by streetlights, parking lot lights, floodlights and signs.
Figure 1 depicts “What is Light Pollution” and provides examples of light trespass, spill light, sky glow and glare.
Figure 1. Example of useful light and light pollution from a typical pole-mounted outdoor luminaire
Source: Adapted from Institution of Lighting Engineers
Does the Village of West Dundee have a plan in place to ensure that the lighting goals of an environment are appropriately defined and met? In some states legislation is being considered that would restrict outdoor lighting by environmental zone. Environmental zones promise to reduce overall light pollution by helping to limit, or in some cases eliminate, light wastage.
In a letter dated September 29th, 2006, from Robert L. Gamrath of the law firm of Quarles & Brady, LLP, to Jennifer Becker, Community Development official for the Village of West Dundee, it is stated that “Per Village Staff’s request, Wal-Mart is in the process of preparing a photometric plan analyzing the proposed lighting plan for the Supercenter site.”
We would hope that details of this photometric plan would be made publicly available (none was extant as of October 2007) and submitted to independent review by an outside expert. We would like in particular to know what the increase in foot-candles will be at all points from the neighbors’ vantage, which will have a direct impact on the “use and enjoyment” of their property, as well as the potential resale value.
B. Noise Pollution
There is reason to believe that the petitioner’s plan would cause significant noise pollution to the general area and to neighboring residential properties in particular, significantly degrading the “enjoyment” of those properties and negatively impacting both the health and general welfare of the area in particular and the community in general.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), traffic noise has emerged in recent years as an ever present but often underestimated pollutant in our lives. Environmental noise affects health and well-being physically, mentally and socially. There is ample evidence showing that high noise levels interfere with speech and communication, cause sleep disturbance, decreased learning ability and scholastic performance, increase stress-related hormones, blood pressure changes, ischaemic heart disease as well as the use of psychotropic drugs and medicines.
Road traffic noise is one of the most widespread and growing environmental problems. The impact of road traffic noise on the community depends on various factors such as road location and design, land use planning measures, building design, vehicle standards and driver behavior.
A study financed by Volvo Trucks states that propulsion sound power is greatest at start. Propulsion noise is noise from the engine, air intake, exhaust, cooling systems and transmission. Propulsion noise was found to be approximately 72-74 dBA which puts it at the upper limits, if not exceeding the dBA limit (dependent on octave band), for noise levels permitted in manufacturing and commercial districts that abut residential property, per Illinois State EPA regulations. Further, increased vehicle load demands gear shifting through more gears and prolongs the acceleration and will increase the noise duration.
With the truck access located closest to the adjoining residential properties, they will be impacted by acceleration and deceleration movements required to maneuver through the intersection.
For reference, the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Title 35, Subtitle H, Chapter 1, states:
Section 901.102 Sound Emitted to Class A Land
a) Except as elsewhere provided in this Part, no person shall cause or allow the emission of sound during daytime hours from any property-line-noise-source located on any Class A, B or C land to any receiving Class A land which exceeds any allowable octave band sound pressure level specified in the following table, when measured at any point within such receiving Class A land, provided, however, that no measurement of sound pressure levels shall be made less than 25 feet from such property-line-noise-source.
Octave Band Center Frequency (Hertz) Allowable Octave Band Sound Pressure Levels (dB) of Sound Emitted to any Receiving Class A Land from
Class C Land Class B Land Class A Land
31.5 75 72 72
63 74 71 71
125 69 65 65
250 64 57 57
500 58 51 51
1000 52 45 45
2000 47 39 39
4000 43 34 34
8000 40 32 32
b) Except as provided elsewhere in this Part, no person shall cause or allow the emission of sound during nighttime hours from any property-line-noise-source located on any Class A, B or C land to any receiving Class A land which exceeds any allowable octave band sound pressure level specified in the following table, when measured at any point within such receiving Class A land, provided, however, that no measurement of sound pressure levels shall be made less than 25 feet from such property-line-noise-source.
Octave Band Center Frequency (Hertz) Allowable Octave Band Sound Pressure Levels (dB) of Sound Emitted to any Receiving Class A Land from
Class C Land Class B Land Class A Land
31.5 69 63 63
63 67 61 61
125 62 55 55
250 54 47 47
500 47 40 40
1000 41 35 35
2000 36 30 30
4000 32 25 25
8000 32 25 25
(Source: Amended at 30 Ill. Reg.5533, effective March 10, 2006)
Given the potential for constant law-breaking noise emission from the petitioner, is the Village prepared to respond to complaint calls in each instance of a violation, or are residents expected to simply accept, due to fiat, that their neighbor will for all practical purposes be allowed to break the law constantly and without recourse?
Is the petitioner’s assumption, therefore, that for all practical purposes they can break the law, because their neighbors will eventually just give up and stop complaining?
The likelihood of significant intermittent noise pollution from the subject property to residential properties is such that there will certainly be “injur[y]” to the “use and enjoyment” of surrounding properties and, thereby, the petitioner has failed the standards for Special Uses.
C. Storm water run-off
Resident concerns about storm water run-off and flooding are serious. Even with the addition of a small strip center at Huntley Road and Tartans, there has been a noticeable increase in storm water run-off and flooding. On this point in particular, we urge the Planning and Zoning Commission, as it is in their power to do, to allow for extra time for an independent review of the petitioner’s plan.
Storm water runoff has two main components: the increased volume and rate of runoff from impervious surfaces (roads, highways, parking lots, and rooftops) and the concentration of pollutants in the runoff. Sediments, toxic metal particles, pesticides and fertilizers, oil and grease, pathogens, excess nutrients, and trash are common storm water pollutants. Many of these constituents end up on roads and parking lots during dry weather only to be washed into water bodies when it rains or when snow melts and is a major contribution to water pollution. Storm water runoff not only affects aquatic habitats, but it can threaten human health by degrading the quality of public drinking water. Runoff from roofs, roads, parking lots, and lawns can contain abnormal levels of heavy metals such as lead and chemical pesticides and insecticides, many of which are carcinogens and can potentially impact human health.
The effect of impervious surfaces on the volume of storm water runoff can be dramatic. For example, a 1-inch rainstorm on a 1-acre natural meadow would typically produce 218 cubic feet of runoff. The same storm over a 1-acre paved parking lot would produce 3,450 cubic feet of runoff, nearly 16 times more than the natural meadow.
Currently, the proposed site contains no amount of impervious surfaces (artificial land surfaces such as pavement and rooftops, which do not allow rainwater to percolate into the soil, but instead it to runoff into surrounding surface waterways). The proposed Wal-Mart site plan would convert approximately 80% of the site into impervious surfaces, such as the parking lot and main store. This conversion of a large portion of the site to impervious surfaces will cause an increase in the volume of storm water runoff.
The second aspect of storm water pollution is the increased discharge of pollutants. As human activity increases in a given area, the amount of waste material deposited on the land and in drainage systems increases. The principal contaminants of concern for storm water fall into seven categories. The following table lists these categories and provides examples.
TABLE 1
Categories of Principal Contaminants in Storm water
Category Examples
Metals zinc, cadmium, copper, chromium, arsenic, lead
Organic chemicals pesticides, oil, gasoline, grease
Pathogens viruses, bacteria, protozoa
Nutrients nitrogen, phosphorus
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) grass clippings, fallen leaves, hydrocarbons, human, and animal waste
Sediment sand, soil, and silt
Salts sodium chloride, calcium chloride
Driving a car or truck contributes a number of different types of pollutants to storm water runoff. Pollutants are derived from automotive fluids, deterioration of parts, and vehicle exhaust. Once these pollutants are deposited onto road and parking surfaces, they are available for transport in runoff to receiving waters during storm events. Other vehicle and truck related sources of metals include tire wear, brake pad wear, used motor oil and grease, diesel oil, vehicle rust and tailpipe emissions. Tire ware is a substantial source of cadmium and zinc; concentrations at outfalls often exceed acute toxicity levels. Engine coolants and antifreeze containing ethylene glycol and propylene glycol can be toxic and contribute high biological oxygen demand (BOD) to receiving waters. Vehicle exhaust contributes the nutrient nitrogen to our nation’s waters. Oil, grease, and other hydrocarbons related to vehicle use and maintenance also contaminate our waters. These come from disposal of used oil and other fluids on the ground or into storm drains, spills of gasoline or oil, and leaks from transmissions or other parts of automobiles and trucks. The storm water discharge from one square mile of roads and parking lots can yield approximately 20,000 gallons of residual oil per year. Even gas vapor emitted when filling tanks can subsequently mix with rain, contributing significantly to polluted runoff.
In the Village of Gurnee, Wal-Mart committed to a fully-underground storm water management system after local residents expressed concern about flooding on their properties. Has Wal-Mart considered this option for this property in their on-going efforts to make extraordinary efforts to be a good neighbor, as they have claimed? Or is it generally their policy to provide the least possible protection unless challenged to surpass the standard?
Construction activity is the largest direct source of human-made sediment loads. Since erosion rates are much higher for construction sites relative to other land uses, the total yield of sediment and nutrients is higher. Studies indicate that poorly managed construction sites can release 7 to 1,000 tons of sediment per acre during a year, compared to 1 ton or less from undeveloped forest or prairie land.
Major concerns which will create storm water runoff pollution are increased traffic, both vehicular and truck traffic, and the special use permit requests. Due to the Outdoor Garden Sales Area Special Use, the types of contaminants that can runoff are pesticides, fertilizer, petroleum and grease. How will the city mitigate the pollution in storm water runoff?
Any site design that Wal-Mart proposes for a storm water management system will not be effective in removing all of the bacteria and pollutants from storm water. Over the years, Wal-Mart has had many lawsuits against them for storm water violations; please refer to Exhibit A in this section which is a summary of the enforcement case report from the US Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The most common violation is storm water runoff due to construction. How will the Village monitor this type of violation?
Is Wal-Mart’s policy that leaving their garbage outside is acceptable unless and until their neighbors complain?
Wal-Mart regularly and brazenly stores its garbage outdoors. Pictures have been taken over several months at the East Dundee store, showing storage of garbage and mysterious vats of chemicals stored not only on the impervious surface, but on the grass field behind the store. We can assume they assured the Village of East Dundee that they would not just leave their garbage sitting outside for it to be washed into the ground water. Will the Village be constantly monitoring for this type of violation? Will they respond to every call from neighbors asking that filth not be left outside?
Or is this another instance where neighbors will have to be resigned to the fact that their neighbor will regularly break the law, and there is no recourse?
What we are demonstrating here is not merely that Wal-Mart has been a bad neighbor in the past—but rather that they have not, as they are claiming, made “every effort” to make this proposal a good fit for West Dundee, that it is a “creative” use of land that will not be “injurious to the use and enjoyment” of surrounding properties.
Their pattern of poor stewardship of the public trust demonstrates their policy—we are only asking the Village to recognize that this proposal fits in that pattern.
EXHIBIT A
6. Crime and Safety Issues
The Wal-Mart Supercenter will bring a significant increase in crime to the neighborhood they seek to build in. Wal-Mart stores average some 0.65 complaints to police per day, and this is across all stores, not merely 24-Hour Supercenters. This will irreparably alter the nature of the community negatively, and therefore degrade the “morals” and “general welfare”, thus causing the petition to fail a standard for the Special Use they seek.
In a letter dated 15 June, 2006, from Village of West Dundee Community Development official Jennifer Becker to Director Cathleen Tymoszenko, Ms. Becker wrote,
A lighting plan should be submitted which shields light from Tartan’s and the lights need to be extinguished 30 minutes after closing. This raises the larger issue of hours of operation. Do they intend to be 24 hours? I think this may be an issue concerning the neighbors. We also need to find out when loading docks and refuse pick up will be made in relation to the south portion of the building’s operations.
This was almost two years ago. In two years of negotiations, Wal-Mart has made no effort to address this concern, still intending to be 24-hours and offering a limp pledge to “work with” the Village regarding delivery and trash pick-up hours. Insisting on these extended hours of operation in a structure directly abutting a large, single-family residential neighborhood and a park that is completely dark at night is beyond insensitive and moves into recklessness.
This does not demonstrate the petitioner’s claim that they have worked diligently to be sensitive to the neighborhoods concerns—more so, it demonstrates the petitioner’s desire to get away with as much as possible.
The potential relationship between big box retailers and crime is a common and one of the most important issues raised by citizen groups and local communities. In May 2006, a Wal-Mart related crime study entitled “Is Wal-Mart Safe?” was published (available at www.WalMartCrimeReport.com) lending credence to this concern. This study analyzed police incident reports (calls for service) during 2004 associated with 551 Wal-Mart stores across the United States and included 39 Illinois Wal-Mart locations. In 2004, Illinois police departments received 9,294 calls for service at these 39 locations. The average number of reported police incidents at these Illinois Wal-Mart locations was 238 per year (0.65 calls per day). While the numbers may vary from town to town, the data does support the growing public concern and costs of criminal activity at Wal-Mart Supercenter locations with 24-hour operations. The increased demands of policing Wal-Mart stores have posed serious challenges for communities, even when expanding existing sites. For example:
Ankeny, Iowa police (Des Moines Metro Area) saw a substantial increase in crime once Wal-Mart super-sized to a 207,000 square-foot store in September 1999. Police records show that crimes such as shoplifting, theft, forgery and counterfeiting increased 74% in 2000 at the Wal-Mart Supercenter compared with the smaller Wal-Mart that operated in town in 1999. Police Chief Paul Scranton requested two additional officers to deal with increased workloads in 2000 and the city hired a consultant to study in 2001 whether to hires officers and/or take officers off other duties. [Des Moines Register, July 22, 2000 and Des Moines Register, November 7, 2001]
Dallas, Texas police warned, in an internal Dallas Police Department memo, that a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter would lead to longer response times. [Dallas Morning News, June 5, 2002]
In case the petitioner intends to claim that these reports or practices are in the distant past or a result of partisan antagonism, we can look at a report from this month. On May 1st, 2008, WMAQ NBC-5 aired a report that found that crime was a bigger problem at Wal-Marts than at comparable competitors, and found that
…Wal-Mart cuts corners when it comes to customer safety.
The Target-5 report continued:
What might have seemed to be an isolated incident was not…in the more than 1,000 reports that we reviewed, a story about failed or non-existent security video emerged. Over and over, victims and the police investigating their complaints were told Wal-Marts cameras were not working or not recording; the spot in question was not covered by Wal-Mart cameras, or there were not security agents working at the time.
Does this show a respect for the community and the store’s neighbors? Or does it demonstrate a desire to do just enough? The report went on to find:
After high profile parking lot abductions and murders, the retail giant was the subject of documentaries and accused in lawsuits of creating an environment which attracts criminals who seek to prey on its customers and failing to use adequate and effective video surveillance.
But is it just Wal-Mart? Or do other big box stores have similar problems? Consider these numbers pulled from police reports filed over the last three and a half years. At this Target in Niles, police responded to five incidents of parking lot crimes committed against shoppers. Just a half mile down the road at this Wal-Mart, the figure is five times higher, at twenty five. In Lansing for all crimes reported both inside and outside the store, police responded to the K-Mart 143 times. Just down the same street, they went to the Wal-Mart ten times more often—one thousand, four hundred and seven times.
Their excuse?
No security system is perfect.
Source: http://video.nbc5.com/player/?id=244001
We have the following concerns with the proposed Supercenter, its 24/7 operation and proposed location.
• Potential additional burden on the Village of West Dundee Police Department. As cited above, police departments have reported or are concerned about an increase in crime at Wal-Mart Supercenters. This additional burden may result in longer response times that will impact public safety city-wide and increased budgetary strain should additional police officers be required to maintain existing service levels/response times. Furthermore, the 24/7 operation of the proposed Supercenter may further exacerbate the situation during late evening hours when crime is likely to be more prevalent; especially on Friday and Saturday nights.
• Proximity to public parks. Huffman Park will just about abut the Wal-Mart Supercenter. The proximity of the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter to this park will raise questions about the safety of families and children frequenting it. Concerns about safety may be so great these individuals may not even utilize these facilities resulting in personal loss of use.
• Proximity to residential areas. Literally hundreds of families, many with children, live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed store. The proximity of the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter may increase the frequency of similar, or perhaps more significant, events. Any such increase will compromise homeowner and property safety.
Wal-Mart is not the victim here. They have created this reputation out of their own clear disregard for their own customers and employees, as well as their neighbors. The public perception of the store is not a fabrication, but is supported by hard data pulled from police departments.
Clearly, then, development of this 24-hour, large-scale retailer will be “injurious to the use and enjoyment” of surrounding properties, while also degrading the quality of life in West Dundee and the public perception of the Village as a safe, quiet, Main Street town.
7. Trip Generation Characteristics of Free Standing Discount Superstores, ITE Journal, August, 2006
8. Conclusion
The petitioner’s proposal as it currently stands fails to meet the standards for special uses or for variances. This has been demonstrated point-by-point in section 3 above. On these grounds alone, the Planning & Zoning Commission has the grounds and evidence to send a negative recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
The evidence presented herein also demonstrates that this particular plan does not indicate any desire on the part of the petitioner to “fit in” to the Village, or to be “harmonious” with surrounding properties—a condition, it should be noted, of the building regulations. This lack of harmony will lead to a degradation of the quality of life not only for the immediate abutters, but for a significant portion of the Village of West Dundee. This means that the proposal fundamentally fails the standards it must meet in order to move forward.
The only compelling reason before the Commission or the Board to grant approval to any of the requests by the petitioner is a singular desire for tax revenue. While we obviously support efforts to diversify the Village’s tax base, accepting a plan that so clearly fails any reasonable standards, from a petitioner with a demonstrated history of being a reckless and irresponsible neighbor, is not wise and goes against every practical instinct of land use planning.
We are confident that the evidence presented herein, the testimony and questioning offered at hearing and the letter of the law will lead to a negative recommendation from the Commissioners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)