Will County committee approves AZ Hard Rock quarry expansion despite residents' objections

At a meeting of the Will County Land Use and Development Committee, members approved a zoning map amendment and three special-use permits that would allow R E Land ILV Inc. (applicant represented by Castle Law and other counsel) to expand quarrying and related operations north of Essington Road in Wheatland Township.

The application, known as zoning case ZC24066, seeks rezoning to an I-3 industrial district for roughly the southeast corner of Essington Road and 127th Street in Bolingbrook, plus special-use permits for mining with blasting, concrete and asphalt mixing, and clean construction/demolition (CCD) fill operations. The applicant’s team said the project would extend the existing AZ Hard Rock quarry and include underground limestone mining, occasional blasting (they said “one to two times a week”), on-site asphalt/concrete mixing and use of CCD as fill. Marguerite (county planning staff) told the committee the operation would require state and federal permits, and that the applicant expects to comply with MSHA, IEPA and Army Corps requirements.

Why it matters: the expansion would place intensified industrial activity closer to established subdivisions, a local elementary school and other residential uses. Opponents described risks including blasting vibrations, potential effects on pipelines and underground utilities, impacts to Lily Cache Creek and wetlands, and declines in property values. The Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Plainfield and Plainfield Consolidated School District 202 submitted formal objections; staff said it received roughly 229 emails opposing the application and residents reported a petition with hundreds of signatures.

What proponents said: contractor and counsel Gary Davidson and other project representatives emphasized the site contains usable limestone resources, that mining in the region has a long history and that the applicant expects to meet federal and state permit conditions. Davidson said the current quarry already blasts “one to two times a week,” and project witnesses described planned mitigation including an 18-foot-high berm (about 113 feet wide with a 5-foot plantable top), a 200-foot setback from property lines where work would start, landscaping and monitoring equipment. The applicant said the same crew of roughly 15 employees would be used, so they did not expect a workforce increase initially.

What opponents said: Plainfield and Bolingbrook elected officials and dozens of nearby residents urged denial. Plainfield Mayor John Arguelles and Bolingbrook Mayor Mary Alexander Bostrom said communities were not adequately protected and that the application represents a significant intensification of mining near homes and a school. Homeowners described hearing blasts, alleged past permit and code violations tied to earlier ownership and expressed concern about the court record cited by the villages. “We unanimously oppose this change of zoning,” said Jack Flurry, president of the Lakelands Club Homeowners Association, on behalf of his neighborhood. Residents complained the removal of an existing berm by a prior owner exposed the quarry and said promises to rebuild the berm were not kept at that time.

Committee action and next steps: the Land Use committee approved the map amendment and the three special uses by narrow majorities; under county procedure the full County Board will consider the map amendment on the county board agenda where a supermajority (three‑quarters) is required to overcome formal objections from municipalities. Committee members also voted to overturn the Planning & Zoning Commission’s denial of two variances (an appeal) related to location of open pits and shafts, which clears a procedural hurdle for the applicant pending the full board’s action. If the County Board denies the map amendment or the required state/federal permits are not obtained, the project could not proceed as presented.

Technical and permit notes: staff and the applicant said multiple state and federal approvals are required — including MSHA, IEPA and U.S. Army Corps reviews — and that the project’s final design must respect floodplain and drain tile constraints. County staff noted the applicant must obtain all required permits and that local road weight restrictions will affect truck routes; staff also said the berm cannot block regulated floodwaters and would be engineered to avoid altering flood flows.

Ending: The committee’s approvals set the timeline for the project to move to the full County Board, where the map amendment will be revisited and subject to a higher voting threshold because of formal municipal objections. County staff and developers said they expect further technical reviews and state permits, while residents signaled they will appear before the full board to press for denial.

Votes at a glance - ZC24066 — Map amendment (A-1 to I-3) and special-use permits for mining/blasting, concrete/asphalt mixing and clean construction/demolition fill — Committee approved; map amendment now goes to full County Board (supermajority required to overcome municipal objections). (Committee tally: 3–2 on map amendment; 3–2 on mining special use; 3–2 on concrete/asphalt special use; 3–2 on CCD special use.) - APCD24004 — Appeal overturning Planning & Zoning denial of two variances (location of open pits/shafts from side property line from 50 ft to 0 ft) — Committee voted to overturn the denial (variances approved on appeal). (Roll-call results recorded in the meeting.)

Key project specifics (as described to the committee) - Operation hours proposed: 7 a.m.–7 p.m. Monday–Friday, 7 a.m.–3 p.m. Saturday. - Blasting cadence described by applicant: up to 1–2 times per week. - Berm: proposed 18-foot height, approximately 113-foot width with a 5-foot plantable top; the berm and planting create an effective 200-foot working setback from specified property lines. - Staffing: applicant said about 15 direct employees, not counting third‑party haulers/contractors. - Public input: staff reported roughly 229 emails opposing the zoning request; municipal objections filed by Bolingbrook and Plainfield and by Plainfield Consolidated School District 202.