Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Drive Thru Hours topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tinley Park trustees discuss limiting drive‑thru hours near Brookside Glen; staff says zoning lacks set hours
Summary
Trustees discussed proposing limits on hours of operation for drive‑thru establishments on Lot 7 near Brookside Glen, with a suggested window of 5 a.m. to 2 a.m.; planning staff said the current zoning ordinance contains no drive‑thru hours and that any condition would be handled through the special-use process.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Drive Thru Hours topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees on the Tinley Park Committee of the Whole discussed whether to restrict hours of operation for any drive‑thru on Lot 7, a site near Brookside Glen, and gave direction to staff to take the issue to the planning commission for consideration of special‑use conditions.
A trustee introduced the item and said their thought was that any drive‑thru hours on Lot 7 should be limited to 5 a.m. to 2 a.m. A later comment in the discussion recorded agreement with “the 5 to 2.” Trustee Schaub asked whether the code currently includes hours-of-operation restrictions for drive‑thrus; planning staff replied, “Nothing for drive throughs for the zoning ordinance. The only things that have hours of operations are adult uses and adult use cannabis.”
Planning staff said Lot 7 would be subject to the special‑use process if a drive‑thru is proposed, and that the village already has expressed a preference against 24/7 operations in that area. Staff suggested specific conditions could be added when a special‑use application is filed or during a future zoning‑ordinance update; the staff comment mentioned a possible linear buffer (for example, a minimum distance between a drive‑thru and residences) and noted the village is planning a zoning‑ordinance rewrite next year where such standards could be included.
Trustees voiced concern about noise and orders being taken near residences. One trustee framed a preference for a solution that “accommodate[s] residents and our businesses” and supported using a linear‑foot buffer or adding restrictions through the special‑use review. No formal motion adopting an ordinance change was made at the committee meeting; the item was presented so staff could seek input and take recommendations to the planning commission.

