Hampshire commission recommends denial of rezoning and special-use for Eco Rubber recycling center

The Hampshire Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of a request to rezone 2011 Keys Avenue from B1 (central business) to M1 (restricted industrial) and to deny a special-use permit for Eco Rubber Products to operate a tire recycling facility, the commission announced after public comment and discussion.

Commissioners split over support for the business versus its downtown location. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Hampshire Village Board for final action at its May 7 meeting.

The proposal, filed as case PZC-26-04, would allow Eco Rubber Products to process used tires into crumb rubber inside an existing roughly two‑acre site near State Street just north of the railroad and south of Keys Avenue. Planner Mr. Pond told the commission staff generally found the rezoning and special‑use findings could be met and recommended approval with three conditions: (1) the special use be limited to this business and nontransferable; (2) if the business ceases operations for six consecutive months the special use would lapse; and (3) any trailers used for tire or product storage must be operable and properly registered.

Applicant representatives — attorney Tom Bur, Caroline Scoffield (representing Eco Rubber Products) and co-owner and president Terry Mirin — described the operation as a mechanical, chemical‑free process that grinds tire tread into crumb rubber for indoor turf, gym tiles and other surfacing. Mirin said the company operates with about five employees, runs roughly 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturdays, and “we are running like a zero waste business” with permits including state and EPA air‑permitting checks, according to the transcript.

Residents who live near the proposed site urged denial or relocation, saying the downtown location is wrong for such an operation. Sherry Johnson told commissioners, “I don’t want to live next to that smell,” and a nearby resident, Wayne Wilson, pressed for details about trailer parking, landscaping and vibration concerns. Commissioners acknowledged support for the product and the company’s environmental claims but repeatedly questioned whether the central business district was the right location. One commissioner summarized the sentiment: “I don’t believe this is the right fit for downtown area.”

Commissioner debate also included safety concerns. One commissioner cited a large tire facility fire in Indiana to underline the perceived hazard of processed rubber storage, noting that outdoor piles of shredded tires had contributed to past fires. Applicant and staff emphasized that this proposal confines processing indoors, limits outside storage to registered, operable trailers and would store finished crumb rubber in four‑foot totes only one high as shown in the applicant’s site layout.

On separate votes the commission first rejected a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning (roll call: Froman in favor; Dhai, McBride, Rosetti and Ross opposed) and then passed a motion recommending denial of the rezoning by majority vote. The commission later rejected a motion to recommend approval of the special use and then passed a motion recommending denial of the special use; the record shows commissioners cited location, potential risks and downtown character as reasons for opposing a positive recommendation. The commission’s recommendation denying both the rezoning and the special use will be transmitted to the village board for its May 7 meeting.

Applicant materials presented to the commission describe the site as an existing industrial‑type building (transcript gives an approximate figure of “43,000” for the building but does not specify units), with interior processing arranged to move tires from trailers through a single mechanical processing line into four‑foot bags of crumb rubber that would be shipped out to customers. Mr. Pond and the applicant confirmed there would be no outdoor processing, and staff recommended conditions intended to limit outside storage and make the special use nontransferable.

The record shows the commission received neighbor notifications and that several residents attended to ask questions. The applicant attempted to play short video clips demonstrating the cutting and grinding process; multiple attendees asked for video sound and additional detail. The applicant also confirmed agreement to staff’s three recommended conditions as part of its presentation.

The commission’s decision was procedural recommendation only; the village board will make the final land‑use decisions on May 7. The commission’s materials and the staff report, including the cited zoning code references (section 6‑8‑2‑8 and section 6‑9‑2‑C as noted in the staff presentation), were incorporated into the record.