Tinley Park public hearing on annexation agreement draws neighbor concerns over 24‑hour uses, traffic and security

Tinley Park trustees opened a public hearing in Tinley Park Council Chambers to consider a proposed annexation and development agreement for a 71.9‑acre site, during which an adjacent resident urged limits on 24‑hour businesses, requested preservation of trees and a berm fence, and raised traffic, property‑value and security concerns.

The agreement presented to the board sets parameters for a multi‑decade relationship between the village and the developer. Village staff described the proposed document as an annexation and development agreement that covers a 71.9‑acre overall parcel (with roughly 55 acres to be annexed), specifies utilities responsibilities, zoning entitlement procedures, engineering and regulatory plans, covenants and special service‑area requirements, and contains updated exhibits and a memo from Delgado reflecting recent changes. Staff said the agreement contemplates a 20‑year term and lays out which party is responsible for utilities and related improvements.

Jennifer, a resident at 7436 Ridgefield Lane who said she is directly adjacent to the site, told trustees that neighborhood residents "did not oppose this development" but asked for meaningful input so the project would "be cohesive to our neighborhood, that it would fit in with how we are." She urged the board and developer to consider specific mitigations she described as important to residents.

On business hours, Jennifer said she had shared an email from McDonald's Corporation with trustees and that franchisees "are not required to have a business open 24 hours." She added, "we don't want this 24 hours. We don't feel that it would fit into our neighborhood." She also opposed a 24‑hour Lenny's gas and car wash at the site, saying similar 24‑hour locations are already accessible from I‑80 and are not sited next to homes.

Jennifer asked that the existing trees on the parcel be retained to buffer noise for nearby homes and requested a 10‑foot fence on a berm around the development buildings to keep customers from accessing the neighborhood through the site. She described traffic on nearby residential streets as already constrained and warned a new development "is gonna have more traffic coming in" that could be forced down subdivision streets, naming Brookside Glen Drive and Lakeside as routes of concern and pointing to difficulties making left turns at times.

On property values, Jennifer asked, "Can you assure the residents that this development will 100% not negatively affect our property values?" She answered her own question, saying, "Of course, you can't," and asked who would be responsible if values decline. She also raised safety concerns, saying the developer told residents he did not plan to provide on‑site security and that Brookside Marketplace, which she said does have security, had experienced criminal activity that she feared could move toward homes if the new site lacks its own security.

A member of the dais acknowledged receipt of the McDonald's email shortly before the hearing and said, "So I will take a look at that later today," and assured the audience the board reviews each project carefully. Village staff also said the agreement text has been tweaked to "clarify whose expectations, for whose requirements are what for utilities" and to update landscaping and fencing exhibits discussed previously.

The trustees opened the hearing by motion and recorded roll‑call votes. The record shows a motion to open the public hearing carried with roll‑call affirmative responses recorded from Trustee Grady, Trustee Brennan, Trustee Mealer, Trustee Shaw and Trustee Sullivan. After public comment, trustees moved to close the hearing; roll‑call votes recorded affirmative responses from Trustee Brady, Trustee Browning, Trustee Mueller, Trustee Shaw and Trustee Sullivan. The board then moved to adjourn the public hearing and return to the village board meeting.

No formal zoning ordinance, annexation ordinance or final development‑plan approval was recorded during the public hearing portion of the transcript. Staff indicated they would continue to update exhibits and clarifications in the draft annexation and development agreement based on prior discussions and materials and that further steps in the village review process remain.

The public hearing record includes the resident's written correspondence from McDonald's Corporation (shared with trustees) asserting that franchisees are not required to operate 24 hours, and a staff memo from Delgado noted in the agenda packet that contains recent clarifications. Trustees did not take a final vote on annexation or entitlements during the hearing; the record shows only motions to open and close the hearing and to adjourn.