Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tinley Park resident says builder damaged parkway; requests village to require restoration
Summary
A resident told the Sept. 2 Tinley Park board meeting that a new house construction across the street repeatedly disturbed the parkway, leaving clay-compacted soil and dead sod; building-department staff said they would inspect and work with the resident and contractor to resolve the issue.
During public comment at the Sept. 2 Village of Tinley Park Board of Trustees meeting, a resident identified as Mr. Pierce described ongoing damage to his parkway caused during construction of a neighboring house and asked the village to require the builder to restore the parkway to its previous condition.
Pierce said the contractor excavated several times over the preceding year to run utility lines that run under the parkway and left clay on the turf, deep tractor impressions and a newly formed swale that traps water. He said the builder’s landscaper later installed rolls of sod on July 12 that he described as “practically dead” and that the resulting surface is lumpy and could be a trip hazard. “It’s not gonna come out of my pocket,” Pierce said, arguing that the cost to remediate—estimated by his landscaper to be about $1,000—should not fall to him.
Pierce said he contacted Mike Coleman in the building department, who visited the property. Village staff present told Pierce they would coordinate an on-site inspection with building and public-works staff and follow up. The board member presiding said staff would arrange for John Urbanski and Mike Coleman to inspect the site together and that the village would seek to have the builder remediate the damage if the work did not meet required standards.
Pierce asked that the village take responsibility for ensuring the builder restores the parkway in a workmanlike manner; village staff said they would follow up and contact him directly.
No formal enforcement action or permit revocation was recorded on Sept. 2; the matter was raised as a public-comment complaint and referred to building department staff for inspection and resolution with the contractor.
