Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Carol Stream trustees to reject proposed MWI industrial site near North Avenue
Summary
Residents at the Feb. meeting told the Village Board that a proposed MWI development of two buildings totaling about 400,000 sq ft and up to 60 truck bays would double the footprint of a prior proposal, raise traffic and emergency-response risks, and threaten nearby churches and neighborhoods; planning staff explained zoning limits and review processes.
Residents pressed the Carol Stream Village Board on concerns about a proposed industrial development by MWI near North Avenue and **** Road, saying the project — described in public comment as two buildings totaling roughly 400,000 square feet — could dramatically increase truck traffic, strain school-bus and emergency routes, and encounter wetlands on the site.
Frank Serwin, who identified himself as a 45-year resident, contrasted the MWI plan with a 2017 project he said was for a single 200,000-square-foot building and said the new proposal’s larger scale and unknown future tenants make traffic estimates less reliable. “MWI proposes to construct 2 buildings with a total footprint of approximately 400,000 square feet,” Serwin said, adding that the developer could not yet identify tenants and therefore traffic projections carry “a lower level of confidence.”
Heather Allrat, a 25-year resident who said she and her husband have attended Lutheran Church of the Master for decades, said she feared up to 60 truck bays cited during earlier discussion and warned that semitrailers could use nearby church parking to turn around. “I implore you to please say no on this,” she said, urging trustees to protect neighborhood safety and the village’s character as a largely residential community.
Pete Jordan, another resident, cited recent industrial and storage projects along North Avenue and said further industrial development could depress property values and reduce open space and trail access. An anonymous resident recounted seeing a large truck run a stop sign on **** Road and said increased truck volumes raise the risk of fatal collisions for local neighborhoods.
Don from Community Development (identified in the meeting transcript only by first name) told trustees how the village attracts businesses and the limits the village faces under zoning. He said the village maintains relationships with shopping-center owners and brokers and sometimes uses sales-tax sharing, tax-increment financing or other incentives, but stressed that if a use is allowed in a zoning district property owners have rights to develop within those standards. “If a use is allowed in a certain zoning district, the property owner has the right to put it there,” Don said, adding that special use or zoning approvals still require following code procedures and standards.
Trustees acknowledged residents’ concerns and said proposals must be evaluated against village standards; no formal zoning approval, special use, or development agreement for the MWI proposal was voted on at the meeting. The board did not adopt or reject any land-use application during the session; the record shows public comment and staff explanation rather than a board decision.
What happens next: Development proposals that require zoning changes, special-use permits or other approvals proceed through formal staff review, public hearings and any required zoning-board or planning-commission recommendations before trustees consider an ordinance or vote. Residents concerned about the proposal asked the board to preserve neighborhood safety and urged trustees to closely scrutinize traffic studies and wetland delineations when an application is filed.
