Manteno board approves larger signs for Goshen site amid safety concerns and public scrutiny

The Village of Manteno on June 16 voted to grant sign variances that allow two larger, illuminated signs on the industrial building at 333 Spruce Street, the facility commonly referred to in public comment as the Goshen site, after residents and trustees debated safety and transparency concerns.

Residents raised potential hazards from large-scale battery and energy storage operations during public participation, saying the village should weigh evacuation and first-responder impacts. Anne Gates, a Manteno resident, told the board she fears “the vastness of the territory that would have to be evacuated” if a thermal runaway or similar incident occurred, and described prior incidents she said were instructive. Paul Motel, chairman of the plan commission, and trustees discussed the sign variances during the planning and board meetings.

The board’s discussion focused on how the village’s zoning code treats industrial properties (the code currently refers industrial development to commercial sign limits), the size and placement of building-mounted signs and whether illumination rules could create visual or safety problems for motorists on nearby State Route 57. Trustee discussion noted the building’s unusual height and massing compared with typical commercial storefronts, which influenced the petition to allow a larger display.

After taking the sign item off the consent agenda for separate consideration, the board approved the ordinance granting variances to allow two building-mounted signs at 333 Spruce Street that exceed the municipal code’s maximum area and height. The motion to approve the ordinance was moved by Trustee Boudreaux and seconded by Trustee Zimbelman. The roll-call vote recorded Yes: Boudreaux, Zimbelman, Berry, Crockett, Getzke; No: Vaughn; outcome: approved.

Trustees and village staff also told residents that the village has had tours of the Goshen facility. Trustee Mike Berry said he toured the site with the company’s head engineer and said the company “showed me the whole place” and that he observed fire suppression systems and a staffed safety function. Berry said the plant’s representatives told the board they were not yet at full production, that the employer reported about 206 employees on site, and that company officials offered additional public tours.

Public commenters urged broader transparency, pressed the board to check emergency planning and asked whether evacuation impacts and hazardous-release scenarios had been fully assessed. Anne Gates said parts of the state and national response to large chemical incidents had required sealing sewers and that releases could pose long-term environmental contamination. The board said local fire officials have visited the site, the village has required and received some documentation and that staff will continue to coordinate with the company and local emergency services.

The board also discussed whether commercial sign rules are appropriate for large industrial buildings and whether the village should adopt separate industrial signage standards. Planning staff explained that Manteno currently references commercial sign limits for industrial parcels and that the variance request was driven in part by the building’s scale.

The action to approve the sign variances does not change other outstanding regulatory, safety or permitting questions about the facility; those remain subject to separate permits, inspections and any applicable county, state or federal requirements.

The board vote carried after the separate motion; trustees said they will continue to press the company for information and the village administrator said staff will assist residents who want to schedule plant tours or seek additional briefings.