BELLEVILLE, Ill. — The Belleville City Council voted 9–6 Monday, Sept. 15, 2025, to approve an annexation agreement and accept an annexation petition for two parcels identified as Partial 08-14-103-035 (1801 Lebanon Avenue) and Partial 08-14-103-005 (2430 Old Collinsville Road), making the properties part of the city and designating them for C2 (heavy commercial) conversion under the annexation agreement.

City staff member Barry, speaking during the public hearing, described the parcels as contiguous to the city and said the annexation would include a portion of the adjoining roadway. "These two properties are contiguous to the city on Eleventh Avenue," Barry said, "and so there's a proposed development for the corner there. That will, of course, go through planning commission and the site plan and everything." The annexation agreement, he said, contemplates the parcels coming into the city as C2 heavy conversion.

Why it matters: Annexation brings privately owned land into city jurisdiction and typically allows municipal zoning and permitting rules to apply; in this case the council's approval paves the way for commercial development on a vacant corner that council members said could generate sales tax revenue for Ward 1. Opponents at the hearing said the likely commercial use — cited by several speakers as a gas station brand already operating nearby — would harm neighborhood safety, property values and residential quality of life.

Resident Patrick Gull, who said he lives next to the proposed site, urged the council to reject the annexation. "We are adamantly opposed," Gull said. "If you have an entrance off of O'Connell Road into that gas station, it's dangerous. You're gonna have somebody fly across Lebanon Avenue, T‑bone somebody coming into that gas station. The road is just too busy, especially in the mornings, with high schoolers coming in and out of there." He also cited light, noise and trash concerns.

Another resident, who identified himself as Rick Brian (the transcript also uses the name Rick Brown for the same address), raised concerns about tax impacts, citing a change in tax figures he reported in his neighborhood. A separate speaker who identified himself as a ward resident said bringing a sales-tax-generating business to the corner would be an asset to a ward that has few commercial properties.

Council debate focused narrowly on the annexation itself. Alderson Ostock, presenting the economic development and annexation committee motion, moved to approve both the annexation agreement and the annexation petition from Lee D. Johnson and Christine E. Johnson, trustees, the recorded owners of the parcels. The council approved the motions by roll call: 9 in favor, 6 opposed. The council later passed ordinance 94-23 (authorizing execution of the annexation agreement) and ordinance 94-24 (annexing the territory) in subsequent votes recorded at the meeting.

Next steps: The annexation does not approve any specific site plan or building permit. City staff and speakers repeatedly said any proposed development on the parcels — including the fuel-and-convenience use raised during public comment — must come back through the planning commission for site-plan review and any required permits.

Votes at a glance
- Annexation agreement and annexation petition (Partial 08-14-103-035 and Partial 08-14-103-005): approved by roll call, 9–6. Motion by Alderson Ostock; second not specified in the transcript. Outcome: approved; next step — planning commission/site-plan review.
- Ordinance 94-23 (authorizing execution of annexation agreement) and Ordinance 94-24 (annexing the territory): approved by roll call during the same meeting (motion carries; roll-call recorded). Outcome: enacted; administrative steps to incorporate parcels into city jurisdiction follow.

Public-comment context: Several speakers used the public hearing to raise neighborhood-safety, traffic and quality‑of‑life concerns tied to a proposed commercial use; other speakers supported annexation for its potential to increase sales tax revenue in Ward 1. The annexation vote reflects the council's decision to allow municipal processes to govern future development rather than blocking the parcels from city zoning and permitting.

Ending: Council members and city staff stressed that any specific development proposal will require separate planning‑commission review and permitting. Residents opposed to the annexation spoke at length during the hearing and may appear again at future public meetings when site plans or permits are filed.