Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial of proposed Plainfield–Woolley gas station after hours of public comment
Summary
After extensive public comment raising traffic, safety and environmental concerns, the Oswego Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of a preliminary and final PUD for a proposed gas station at Plainfield Road and Woolley Road. The recommendation and public record will go to the Village Board for a final decision.
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Oswego Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of a proposed gas station and mixed commercial development at the corner of Plainfield Road and Woolley Road after a lengthy public hearing that drew dozens of residents and detailed engineering questions.
Residents urged the commission to reject the plan, citing proximity to Prairie Point Park, nearby schools and established neighborhoods and warning of increased vehicle congestion and risks to pedestrians. Lisa Ledewski, a 22‑year resident of the Ashcroft subdivision, told commissioners: "This development proximity to schools and family‑oriented facilities makes this an ill suited location for such commercial activity." Tim Kellogg, representing adjacent Stonehill property interests, pressed the petitioner on historic access agreements and stormwater impacts. "We asked the petitioner to work with us prior to village board consideration to honor the conceptual intent for this area," Kellogg said.
Staff presented the site as roughly 3.5 acres in a B‑1 regional business district with a convenience store, quick‑service restaurant, drive‑through and six fuel dispensers. The petitioner described circulation and six parallel dispensers facing Plainfield Road. Commissioners and staff asked detailed questions about cross‑access easements with the adjacent Stonehill property, the internal circulation around drive‑through lanes, proposed signage and whether the project’s detention and drainage would affect downstream properties. The project architect and civil engineer said detention basins would be redesigned and escape lanes and fencing added; the civil engineer noted the need to maintain detention capacity and comply with village and county stormwater rules.
Public safety and traffic circulation were recurring concerns. Several speakers described school‑day congestion and pedestrian flows to ball fields and schools, and urged the commission to weigh long‑term neighborhood character and child safety. One resident asked: "How many gas stations are enough?" and others noted nearby existing stations and an upcoming drive‑thru coffee site.
After closing the public hearing, a commissioner moved to recommend rejection of the applicant’s preliminary and final PUD; the motion carried in a roll‑call vote. The chair said the full public record and the commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board, which has the final authority on zoning and PUD approvals.
What happens next: The Village Board will review the commission record and make the final determination; staff noted concerns and suggested conditions raised during testimony will be included in the packet the board receives.
