Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges trustees to reject proposed multiple-dwelling complex on Farwell Street
Summary
A resident told the Village Board that a proposed multiple-dwelling unit (file 24-0014) near Farwell Street would increase traffic, harm safety and lower property values; the comment was entered into the record during the June 2 meeting.
Preston Van Meaghem, a resident of the neighborhood identified in filing 24-0014, urged the Village of Carol Stream Board of Trustees during the public-comment period to oppose a proposed multiple-dwelling unit complex near Farwell Street.
Van Meaghem said he and his wife moved to the area "2.5 years ago in large part due to the amazing sense of community" and that the proposed development would "increase traffic and strain on a small community, unilaterally decrease property values, and exponentially increase safety concerns." He told the board the neighborhood lacks sidewalks and streetlights and that streets are narrow.
The comment was submitted electronically and read into the record by a board staff member. Van Meaghem asked the village and trustees to consider safety for children, saying the development would make the neighborhood less child-friendly and that elderly residents could move away. He added he would make his email and other neighbors' emails public if residents need to see how the village treats community concerns.
The public comment identified the project as "Multiple dwelling unit complex file number 24-0014" and gave the address as "1 N 319 Farwell Street in unincorporated Carol Stream," noting the site is on the other side of North Avenue near the American Legion. The commenter described specific traffic concerns on Gary Avenue related to vehicles turning into and out of the proposed complex.
No board motion or vote on the project occurred during the meeting; the comment was entered into the record during the public-comment period. Trustees did not discuss or decide on file 24-0014 at that time.
The record does not specify whether the project has an active application before the village planning commission or whether any staff report or formal zoning application had been filed; funding, developer identity, and a project timeline were not specified in the public comment.
Trustees did not provide follow-up direction during the meeting; any next steps (for example, referral to staff or placement on a future agenda) were not stated on the record.
Community members seeking to follow the matter should watch upcoming planning and zoning agendas or contact village staff for the application status and scheduled hearings.
