Broadview zoning board fails to recommend adding prisons, detention centers after heated public hearing

The Broadview Zoning Board of Appeals on Dec. 18 heard a two‑hour public hearing on a proposed text amendment that would add "prisons and detention centers" as a special‑use land use in the village’s OI (office and industrial) district. David Upshaw, the village building commissioner, presented the draft changes and pointed to three packet locations where edits would be inserted (pages 17, 38 and 59).

Upshaw said the amendment would: require a special‑use permit for prisons and detention centers; require secure fencing and a secure gate that do not encroach on public property; require at least one parking space per employee/contractor/officer and parking for buses or other transport used to move detainees; prohibit siting a new prison/detention center within 1,000 feet of residential districts, schools, day‑care centers, cemeteries, park districts, forest preserves, senior‑living facilities and public housing; and require a minimum 750‑foot setback from places of religious worship.

The hearing drew a strong turnout and sustained public opposition. More than a dozen people sworn for testimony urged the board to block any zoning change that could facilitate ICE or Department of Homeland Security use of local property. Speakers included Rabbi Michael Beosin of the coalition against the Broadview ICE facility, who called the move a "house of terror" and said community members would continue protesting. Jessica (one‑name) and others described the Broadview facility as a "black box" with limited oversight and cited claims of overcrowding, lack of food and limited access to counsel reported in recent news coverage and in litigation filings.

Several commenters pressed the board on timing and intent. Jonathan Platt said he had seen a surveyor escorted by a Broadview police officer at a large warehouse on Beach and Lexington and said that suggested possible ICE interest in that property. Another speaker cited the Illinois Way Forward Act and argued that state law restricts local cooperation with federal immigration detention. Multiple speakers referenced an ongoing federal case handled by Judge Gettleman and a temporary restraining order that, they said, constrained how the current facility may be used.

Public commenters pushed for clearer, affirmative prohibitions rather than regulations that set conditions. Lisonbee Galvin and others said the draft ordinance's setback distances, parking and fencing requirements read as permission with conditions rather than a definitive ban on detention infrastructure. Several commenters also criticized notification and outreach, saying the hearing notice had been posted late and the amendment's language was not readily accessible to many residents.

A village representative recommended the zoning board support the amendment. A commissioner then summarized the limits of local authority, noting Broadview is a non‑home‑rule municipality and that statewide legislation would be required for broader prohibitions on state or federal facilities.

When the board moved to adopt findings and recommend approval to the village board, the roll call recorded 'No' votes by Commissioner Bryant, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Taylor, Commissioner Gordon and Chairperson McHugh; the clerk announced the motion did not carry. The clerk and other staff noted that the zoning board is a recommending body and that the village board will receive the record and would need a supermajority to overturn any zoning board action.

The hearing record contains multiple claims and cited authorities: speakers named the Illinois Way Forward Act and the "Trust and Voice" provisions of Illinois law in describing limits on local assistance to federal detention; speakers also cited local and national media reporting and an active federal court matter about conditions at the Broadview facility. The board did not adopt the recommended approval at this meeting; no final action by the village board is recorded in the hearing.

Next procedural steps were not scheduled during the meeting. The zoning board’s vote and the public record will be forwarded to the village board for its consideration, per the zoning board's procedure.