Hampshire trustees deny rezoning for Eco Rubber tire‑recycling plant after safety and downtown‑compatibility concerns

The Hampshire Village Board voted on May 11 against rezoning 2011 Keys Avenue to allow a tire‑grinding and recycling operation proposed by Eco Rubber Products, after trustees and nearby residents raised concerns about public‑safety risks and the parcel’s proximity to the downtown area.

Village staff presented the petition and said Eco Rubber would relocate its processing and storage operations to Hampshire, invest about $400,000 in building and site improvements, and operate an indoor mechanical grinding line to convert semi‑truck tires into crumb rubber used in athletic fields and flooring. Staff told trustees that the company holds state permits and recommended approval with conditions restricting transfer of the special‑use permit and requiring six‑month cessation language for abandonment.

Petitioner representatives, including Carolyn Scoffield and owner Terry, described the mechanical grinding process and said no chemical treatment or odorous emissions are part of the operation. “This is a clean product and a clean business,” the petitioner said during the presentation, noting that finished crumb rubber is bagged and shipped and that the company has permits at its existing Shamburg location.

But Planning & Zoning had recommended denial (4–1), citing the property’s adjacency to Hampshire’s downtown area and concerns that a new industrial use could hinder the town’s long‑term downtown activation. Multiple residents and commissioners voiced apprehension about high‑pile storage of rubber or tires, the potential for difficult‑to‑extinguish rubber fires, truck maneuvering in the narrow site access, and sound transmission from machinery. One public commenter, Mr. Wayne, asked the board to “uphold [the Planning & Zoning] findings,” urging trustees to defer to the commission’s recommendation.

Trustees pressed the petitioner for technical details — hours of operation (the petitioner proposed roughly 7 a.m.–5 p.m. Monday–Friday), truck frequency (the petitioner estimated a few semi deliveries per week plus daily straight‑truck visits), dust control measures and sound insulation. Several trustees said they would be willing to consider the project if independent studies (an outdoor‑to‑indoor‑to‑outdoor noise study and a fire‑safety vetting with the fire district) were completed before the board voted.

After extended deliberation on whether the parcel’s rezoning would set an undesirable precedent for downtown adjacency, a motion to approve the map amendment failed on a roll‑call vote. The board did not proceed to a special‑use vote tied to that zoning change. Trustees encouraged the petitioner to consult with the fire district, conduct the requested studies, or consider alternative locations in the village better suited to the operation.

What happens next: Because the rezoning motion failed, the petitioner may revise the application, supply the studies requested by trustees, or seek another site; the board suggested the petitioner work with village staff on alternate locations and conditions before returning.