Dated: October 14, 1999
Published by: Milan News-Leader
Author: Gray Jarvis
T
Olga Mancik
Betty Manner
Donald Portman
Jerry Renning
Aretta Schils
Gray Jarvis
To the Editor:
I have attended most of the Milan Township Board and Planning Commission meetings
concerning the proposed Ann Arbor Railroad project. I am concerned that the planning
commission has not adequately examined the consequences the AAR Distribution Center will
have on our community. The planning commission appears to reject any information offered
them unless it is presented by the Ann Arbor Railroad.
At the last planning commission meeting, Mr. Bowerman planning commission member, wanted
to postpone the vote for at least one week to allow the planning commission adequate time
to review new documents. These documents were presented to them literally minutes
before the meeting started and they related to the AAR project to be voted on that
evening. The two documents were a draft copy of the Special Land Use Permit and a
copy of a Regional Impact Study prepared by the South Eastern Michigan Council of
Governments (SEMCOG). This study suggested that the impact would be felt locally as
opposed to regionally. In my view, both documents required thorough review by the
planning commission before an informed decision could be made or any vote could be
cast. It was made quite clear by Mr. Cullip, planning commission member, that the
planning commission did not request the SEMCOG study. Therefore, the planning
commission should not have to review the study. It appears that Mr. Cullip feels
that the less information to deal with the better!
I have attended many London Township meetings and found the same problem to exist.
The London Township Board or Planning Commission receives documentation the very
day of a meeting that requires time to examine and are expected to vote on the issue that
same night. I cannot understand why the consultants or legal counsel for the
township do not require that all documentation be made available to the township at least
one week before a decision is to be made to allow sufficient time for review. (An
interesting note: London Township and Milan Township employ the same legal counsel and
consulting firm). Due to the uninformed hasty decision of London Township officials,
there is a big business in London Township that is difficult to control because of a
poorly constructed 'Special Land Use Permit.'
My question is: If Township officials are not reviewing all information available to
them, and voted to recommend approval of the AAR project "just to get this thing over
with" -- just who is railroading who?
Milan Township officials, I am urging you to scrutinize any and all information
provided to you for review related to the proposed AAR project. The decision made by
your five votes will impact the lives of hundreds.
A Very Concerned Citizen
Gray Jarvis
TOP
Olga Mancik
To the Editor:
I have attended meeting, after meeting of the Milan Township Board and Planning Commission
at which the township consultants, township attorneys and representatives of
Transdevelopment and Ann Arbor Railroad have also been present.
The tax issue is still unsettled so the proposed distribution center is negotiating a
fiscal impact fee, a "deal". The common statement is "No development pay's
for itseIf." My fear is the proposed distribution center may bankrupt the
township. It is my opinion a fiscal impact study to determine the costs involved
with the distribution center should be done.
I do not believe the, fiscal impact fee and taxes to the school in any way balance the
impact such a gigantic distribution center would impose on our community.
The "golden carrot" which the developers dangled in front of the Milan'
Township residents initially was bringing water to the township. As I understand, this
water issue has now evolved to - if the township was successful in bringing water to the
purposed distribution center, the distribution center would pay a one-time fee of
$600,000. The cost of bringing water to Milan Township has been estimated at $8 million.
So much for the "golden carrot!"
There are two railroads traveling through Milan Township. Might the other
railroad request a similar facility? If the Ann Arbor Railroad distribution were
allowed, would the township also have to allow a similar facility on the other railroad?
If the distribution center could have entered Milan Township without township approval,
it would have. Why would the developers and the railroad have spent 10-plus months
in meetings unnecessarily? The Township Board controls the township. The
majority of Milan Township citizens support a "no" decision on the rezoning and
special use issues.
Olga Mancik
TOP
Betty Manor
To the Editor:
And yet another voice is heard-I've been following the movement of the Ann Arbor
Railroad Project with great interest. For whatever it's worth I feel I'd like to enlighten
as many people as I can. With all the negative complaints I somehow feel the strongest
involving safety. I live on Main Street and have owned this property since 1959.
I have a deep love and respect for the railroad as my dear father worked for the B & O
Railroad in Toledo until his death in 1972. It was his job all my years of living at home
and through the early years of his three grandchildren. They experienced his touring them
through the roundhouse and getting their pictures taken on the steam engines. I've
introduced the thrill of riding on a train pulled by a steam engine to my grandchildren
like my own children did. My home is filled with all makes of railroad type
memorabilia. I even relate the whistle of a train in the distance as my dad saying
'hi" as I miss him since his death so many years ago.
The Ann Arbor Railroad crosses Main Street close to my home and my backyard meets their
property. When the fire whistle blows there are volunteers that need to cross those tracks
to get to the fire house plus the trucks or rescue units going out on calls heading west.
A train on the tracks forcing them to wait could cost someone's life or
considerable damage to a home due to a fire.
We have been spoiled due to the small amount of use lately over that track system but with
the new project we could be opening up a can of worms. Our track could be the start
of a web of tracks going in many directions. If you think the complaints were bad on
Wabash and Allen then you haven't seen anything yet.
Those loaded railroad cars going through will tie up traffic with all the extra trucks
we've seen lately and will all be smelling diesel fuel.
So now we have danger, noise and pollution. Maybe we'll experience a fire sparked by
the trains like we recently had. The more going through the higher the chance. The
fire department could have their hands full with the lumber company in danger if it was
windy enough.
I have seen too many people walking down the tracks using it as a shortcut. Signs don't
seem to bother the school kids either as my yard is a popular shortcut from the Middle
School.
I intend to spend more years at this location but certainly hope that everyone realizes
that overuse of that crossing can possibly cost a life or a home to anyone needing the
fine efforts of our great fire department.
I also was involved with them many years ago and had to listen to the calls at all times
of day and night so why add to their stress and danger with tying up those crossings
unnecessarily. Not to mention we'll probably have many more accident calls involving
all those thousands of trucks.
We do not need the Ann Arbor Railroad project. We have everything to lose and
nothing to gain the way I see it. Losing one life is too much! Think about if
it involved your child, mother brother, etc. needing that extra time. It scares me!
The people should vote, not just a few. That makes more sense.
Betty Manor
TOP
Donald Portman
To the Editor:
At least three serious environmental impacts that can result from the planned 1000-acre
truck-to-rail auto distribution center in Milan township have not been completely
examined. They have to do with (1) air pollution, (2) local noise levels and (3) flooding
from stormwater runoff. I believe these potentially harmful impacts should be much more
carefully examined if an informed decision on the project is to be made. These are
especially important because they may be most hazardous for public health and welfare of
residents in London township who, obviously, have no official influence on the matter.
AIR POLLUTION: In a limited calculation, the applicant provided
estimates of downwind concentrations of particulates and gases from diesel engine
exhausts. The results for nitrogen oxides (known as NOx) and hydrocarbons were
reported to be within U.S. EPA standards. There are, however, no such standards for
these two substances. The claim is misleading for it suggests that pollution by these
chemicals may be ignored.
Nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, as most people know, form ozone in the presence of
sunshine. No estimate was made, apparently, of the amount of ozone that could be created
on a windless hot summer day by the exhausts of 450 trucks, hundreds of automobiles, and
three or more locomotives at the site. At least, an estimate of the number of summertime
air-stagnation days could be made and, more importantly, what operational action would be
taken during so-called "ozone action days." There are EPA National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for ground-level ozone. They are ozone concentrations above which human
health is endangered. Many areas in southeastern Michigan have experienced ozone
concentrations above these standards this past summer.
There has been no mention of the fact that diesel exhaust has been declared a
cancer-forming substance by the State of California. The claim is supported by both
the International Agency for Research on Cancer and by the U.S. EPA. Citizens living
adjacent to the distribution center deserve to be (1) warned of the frequency of weather
conditions that would yield high concentrations of diesel exhaust in their homes and on
their properties and (2) what mitigation the operators of the center would undertake when
monitors show critical concentrations.
During the last five years, wind direction (measured at a location only 3 miles from
the proposed site) has been such that all pollutants from the site would have passed
directly into neighboring London township for more than 55% of the time.
NOISE LEVELS: It is difficult to find any meaningful results in the
noise analysis reported in the Noise Review by Wade Trim, the township's consultants.
No weather data are reported for either measurements or results of calculations.
For example, it was computed that for a 75 decibel noise level at the southern edge
of the property, the noise "would be completely dissipated within approximately 264
feet." This surely would not be be true most of the time.
It has long been known (from both theory and experiment) that wind and temperature
conditions in the lower atmosphere have a dramatic effect on the intensity of sound one
hears in the vicinity of a noise source at the ground. For example, an experiment
carefully conducted 40 years ago showed the following: If on a sunny day, with a 15
mph wind, you were standing 1000 feet upwind from the edge of a busy highway where the
noise level was 75 decibels, you'd experience about a 25 decibel reduction in the highway
noise. There the noise level would be reduced to the same as that produced in a normal
conversation by two people standing 3 feet apart.
On the other hand, if you were 1000 feet downwind at night with a characteristic 4 mph
wind you'd find that the 75 decibel traffic noise would have decreased by only 1 to 4
decibels, a barely perceptible decrease for most people. One must conclude that the 264
feet for complete dissipation of 75 decibels, cited above, must have been a calculation
for an unusually strong south wind in the daytime!
Summer evenings are likely to produce the most complaints from residents on the
eastern, southern and northern borders of the property. It is stated that peak traffic at
the center will occur between 8 and 10 in the morning and 6 to 8 in the evening. Nighttime
temperature conditions begin to form typically in the late afternoon so that by 6 pm one
can easily experience nighttime conditions all evening and, of course, all night and well
into midmorning. Nighttime temperature structure (inversions) combined with the usually
associated large wind speed increase with height will, in fact, cause the sound waves to
be bent over the 13-foot berm actually claimed to reduce the noise level!
LOCAL FLOODING: Apparently the stormwater catchment basins were
designed on the basis of a 100-year 24-hour rainfall. This means that, on the basis of
past records, a rainfall amount of as much as 4 inches in a 24-hour period, should be
expected once in every century. In this area, unfortunately, rainfall records are mainly
only about one century long so the sampling is poor by the usual statistical standards,
and one cannot rely seriously on this short record for future events. In southeastern
Oakland county, for example, SEMCOG's analysis of 13-years record (1960-1973) shows at
least two storms that exceeded the 100-year value by as much as 2 inches for 24 hours in
some areas.
As is well known, a rainfall event may last for several days. It would seem prudent to
design catchments for at least a one-week rainfall period. For this area the 100-year
amount would be a little over 7 inches. Like the air pollution caused by the proposed
center, London township residents are likely to be the most seriously influenced because
of the direction of natural drainage.
Air pollution, noise levels and flooding have become serious problems for communities
throughout the country and legal restraints appear to be increasing along with resulting
litigation. The questions identified here deserve more serious attention than they have
been given to assure Milan township's freedom from liability. Had a student in one of my
former classes in Air Pollution Meteorology submitted a term report as deficient as any of
these environmental impact analyses, my grade would be an "F" with comments such
as: superficial treatment, misleading conclusions, and lack of objectivity.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Portman
Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science
The University of Michigan
TOP
Jerry Renning
To the Editor:
I am more than mildly shocked at the narrow vision of some of the people that serve on the
Milan Township Planning Commission, which met last Tuesday night at Milan Middle School,
and voted 5-1 to approve the siting of yet another railroad to deal with in our little
city.
Recently, as you know, Cabella's began building its huge retail store in Dundee, expecting
5 million people a year to shop there. Let's try that again - 5,000,000 people. That's
certainly more people than we have in this area. So, that means people are going to be
traveling here to shop. They may need to eat while they're here. What if they want to stay
overnight? Because it's a sporting goods store, some spouses may choose to drop one off
and go to other local shops. That means the potential for more restaurants, motels, and
shops. Now once the Dundee highway cloverleaf fills up, the next one is only four
miles north at Cone Road. But no one is going to want to build at that location with
a big old smelly railroad there, and all that congested traffic from the many hundreds of
trucks a day. That railroad will produce as much revenue (they won't have much that's
taxable) as a couple of successful stores, much less a successful cloverleaf.
Look at Toledo, Dundee, Milan, and Ann Arbor's highway cloverleaves. Businesses
flock to easy on/off egresses, once it gets started. When McDonald's builds, here
comes Arby's, gas stations, other retail stores, etc. Milan Township grabbed the
first offer to come by without any vision as to the potential of that location. Four
miles from a huge store few people would have predicted eight months ago.
Folks, it's time to get involved again, just like when the MCATS needed people to get
involved and stop a toxic incinerator/deep dump. Four thousand people met at Lincoln
Middle School and said, "No!" It's time to keep them from trying to railroad us
again.
Trains already cut our town to shreds all hours of the day and night on the east side.
This project will cut right through the heart of MiIan across Wabash, Division, Main, and
Platt. Do you use any of those roads? Do your children or animals? Let's go to a football
game or, parade if we want a crowd, not an intersection on the way to or from work or
school.
Please come to the meeting at Milan Middle School on Wednesday, Oct.13 at 7p.m.
"It ain't over 'til it's over."
Jerry Renning
TOP
Aretta Schils
To the Editor,
Last Wednesday's Milan Planning Commission meeting turned out to be a real eye opener for
some on the AAR Properties' true intentions. In my opinion, it boils down to the fact that
they think they can come in here and do anything they please with no controls. I think
we've got enough of that going on in our local townships already.
A letter was read dated September 29 from Kingsley Buhl of the Dykema Gossett law firm who
represents the AAR Properties. They say :
" As discussed we believe that it is important to note in the final preamble to the
SUP that the Applicant has advised the Township that the Applicant believes that the
proposed facility is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board
and, accordingly, it is not subject to the Township's zoning ordinance. We
understand that the Township does not necessarily agree with the Applicant's position
regarding federal preemption, but it will agree to include such a statement in the
preamble."
They must think we all just crawled out from under a turnip leaf. Why in the world
would someone put a clause in any project saying that they have no control over the
development?
If they REALLY thought they fit under pre-emption, why have they been haggling for the
last year to option land and then to re-option for another year? Why would they be
spending hours and dollars trying to come to an agreement on a special land use when they
could just walk in and do as they please? Why would they have to have the Master
Plan changed, and the ordinances "interpreted", and the land zoned from
agricultural to industrial?
In the same letter, they ask that the limitations on the number of trains and/or rail cars
that may enter or leave the facility be deleted in it's entirety. More trains mean
more trucks, more air pollution, and more noise. My, my but aren't they just such
good neighbors ?
They want the township to split 50/50 in the cost of compliance reviews. How many
other businesses do you know that don't have to pay ALL the inspection costs? Aren't
they getting a little cheap in the generosity toward the township?
They want performance bonds deleted. What is going to be their incentive to comply with
the rules? How many drivers would go the speed limit if no tickets were issued and it
didn't cost them big bucks? And don't say that AARP would comply because they are
"good neighbors" because I think they are quickly showing just what that phrase
means to them.
They want discretionary hearings deleted. So how is the public ever going to have input
into their violations? They only want complaints from "credible" sources.
Are we going to have to hire engineers to tell them what we see, hear and smell?
They want noise, light and air quality levels redone and most of us think they are
far too liberal in the first place.
We've done a lot of talk about the AARR being good neighbors but how much thought have we
given to our being good neighbors by allowing this in? What about our neighbors to the
north that have to endure all the truck traffic? What about our neighbors to the south who
have to endure the extra train traffic? What about the neighbors whose wells will go
dry when the AARR uses far more water than they propose....and I do believe they will.
Is Milan Township going to dump on their neighbors because they feel dumped on by
London with LSA and Dundee with Holnam? I am ashamed that London Township has caused
surrounding areas so many problems by not enforcing their ordinances against London
Aggregate. Some of us have been working for years to remedy that problem and soon
the light at the end of the tunnel will come and I hope that tunnel isn't on the Ann Arbor
Railroad or the light will likely be one of the many added trains.
I surely hope that many are realizing that giving the ok to this project may be like
bringing home a lizard only to find out it grows up to be Godzilla. Or that adorable
little chimp you adopted grows up to be King Kong and is out of control.
The SEMCOG study will be finalized at a meeting in the afternoon of the same evening that
the Milan Board is scheduled to make it's final decision. The 60-day vote
postponement runs out shortly and whether you are in favor of or against this project, as
a citizen of this area, you should be at the October 13th meeting at 7 pm at the Milan
Middle School. This is a part of your future in this town.
Aretta Schils
TOP