Lemont board approves annexation of four parcels near I‑55 amid heated resident opposition to proposed gas-and‑wash

The Lemont Village Board voted to annex four parcels on Lemont Road — listed in the ordinance as 11 S 240, 11 S 260, 11 S 276 and 11 S 286 — into the village as R‑1 (residential) property after a lengthy public comment period in which dozens of nearby residents urged the board to block a proposed gas station and car wash.

The move was described by village staff as a first, jurisdictional step that would bring the parcels under Lemont’s land‑use rules; any future rezoning or development would require further public hearings. Village Administrator George Schaeffer said, “This is really just a first step. If the village board approves it, it’ll be in the village’s jurisdiction… it would go through staff, a planning and zoning meeting and then come back to the village board,” a sequence he described as taking months and being publicly noticed.

Why it matters: Neighbors said annexation opens a pathway to immediate rezoning and development that could allow a large, 24‑hour truck‑oriented gas station and car wash at a residential gateway near I‑55. Opponents raised groundwater contamination, traffic safety, lighting/noise and crime risks; proponents and the applicant said annexation is voluntary and common and would give the village regulatory control over subsequent proposals.

Residents from the Pleasantdale subdivision and neighboring streets packed the meeting and spoke in opposition. Speakers cited wells and septic systems, safety at nearby highway ramps, and neighborhood character. One resident said the neighborhood had collected more than 400 signatures opposing the gas‑and‑wash proposal; another said 800 signatures were collected by a petition presented to the nearby municipality of Woodridge.

Michael Hackett, representing the property owner and identified at the meeting as affiliated with the business group described as Gas and Wash, said the owner had purchased the parcels and was requesting annexation on the basis of contiguity to existing Lemont property (the Lemont National Bank) and that the parcels would be annexed as R‑1 residential. He said any change from residential zoning would require separate, later public hearings.

Several trustees and the mayor acknowledged the emotion in the room while explaining the board’s reasoning. Trustee McClafferty said the board’s vote simply allows Lemont to regulate what happens on the parcels: “If it goes to the county, we have no say in the matter whatsoever,” she told residents, arguing that annexation preserves local control and the opportunity for multiple public hearings.

The board voted in favor of the annexation motion. Trustees voting yes on the roll call included Stapleton, Forsley, Kittredge, McClafferty, Shaughnessy and Smirgenowski; the motion carried.

What happens next: Annexation makes the parcels subject to Lemont’s codes and to the village’s planning and zoning process. That process includes technical staff review, a planning and zoning public hearing with mailed notice and a subsequent village board review; any rezoning request would require its own public notice and hearings. Village staff told residents that de‑annexation (a later request by the owner to return the parcels to unincorporated jurisdiction) is legally possible but would be a separate process.

Community concerns recorded at the meeting included: potential petroleum contamination of private wells; increased traffic and accident risk at the I‑55/Lemont Road area; night‑time lighting and noise; possible rise in petty crime or other criminal activity associated with a 24‑hour truck stop; and perceived lack of advance public notice sent to some residents. Village staff and the mayor said notice procedures are part of subsequent public hearings if the owner applies for rezoning.

The board’s action was limited to annexation; it did not approve any rezoning or a development plan. Residents were advised that the village will post future notices on the village website and that the planning and zoning review would include formal mailed notice and public hearings.

Ending: After the vote the meeting continued with other agenda items. Several residents asked staff to ensure that any future applications include full environmental and traffic analyses and that notice be distributed well in advance of rezoning hearings.