Will County board advances amendments limiting condemnation offers on 140th/140 Third Street project after public outcry

The Will County Board on Sept. 18 approved two amendments that narrow the county’s active property acquisition for the proposed widening of 140 Third Street, following sustained public comment from Homer Glen residents and local officials and several hours of debate.

The first amendment, carried by roll call, withdraws “all offers to purchase parcels for such improvement between Lamont Road/State Road and Parker Road” and passed 15–0 on the roll call for the amendment. A subsequent motion changed language in the resolution from authorizing the Department of Transportation to pursue purchases to explicitly requiring the DOT to withdraw outstanding offers in that corridor; that wording change carried 19–0 on a later roll call. The underlying resolution directing the state’s attorney to proceed with condemnation for the project remained under discussion during the meeting and did not reach a recorded final vote in the transcript excerpt.

The actions follow an extended public comment period in which village and township officials, homeowners and association representatives urged the board to pause or reconsider the project. “If you pass today’s resolution to condemn the properties, you’re setting a trajectory within the village of Homer Glen that money matters over people,” said Heidi, a Homer Glen resident who identified herself during public comment.

Joe Baber, village manager for Homer Glen, asked the board to “revisit in its entirety” the widening plan before any condemnation moves forward. Sue Stein, Homer Township supervisor, said the widening “has not had the need demonstrated” and recommended lowering the posted speed limit as the primary safety measure, saying “widening isn’t going to improve the safety. Lowering the speed limit will.”

Mayor Christina Nitsky Chroycki of Homer Glen told the board the compromise on the table is “kicking the can down the road” and urged leaders to produce a plan backed by current facts rather than projections. Bernie Zierinski, representing the Donwood Subdivision Homeowners Association, said residents would accept a three-lane configuration but oppose a five-lane expansion that would bring the road closer to backyards and remove mature trees.

Board members divided on the project’s merits. Member Butler said the county should “give [the village] their road” and avoid imposing a five-lane corridor through a residential area. Member Balich noted the county previously voted 13–9 to remove the corridor from an earlier plan and asked for clarification about why it still appears in the 2050 transportation plan; Department of Transportation staff later explained how long-range planning and technical traffic warrants factor into the plan’s listings.

Jeff (Will County DOT staff) told the board the 2050 plan “is showing the needs of the county in year 2050” based on traffic projections; DOT staff said whether the county executes construction contracts is a separate decision for the board. DOT staff also explained that parcels removed from active negotiation by the board’s action would not be reacquired without subsequent approval.

Board leaders proposed, and members approved, language that withdraws offers outside a specified 0.6-mile segment in the previously negotiated compromise and that requires the DOT to pull outstanding purchase offers for those parcels. State’s Attorney involvement was preserved for parcels that remain within the active acquisition area, according to staff remarks during the meeting.

The meeting record shows several amendments and roll-call votes on the limits to active negotiations; the transcript did not include a final roll call on the full, amended condemnation resolution in the excerpt provided. Board members and town and village officials said additional outreach, alternative safety measures (including reduced speed limits), and clearer cost estimates should be part of any future action on the corridor.

As the board continues consideration, residents and township officials asked the county to pause any legal acquisition steps for parcels outside the newly specified segment and to revisit the project’s scope, funding, and safety rationale.

The board’s public hearing and debate on the 140 Third Street item included dozens of residents and multiple elected local officials, and the matter is likely to return to the public record as staff and legal counsel implement the board’s amendments or bring further recommendations back to the board for a formal vote.