Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Comment Fire Station topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge Burr Ridge to block Tri-State fire station expansion over health and traffic concerns

Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Burr Ridge · February 24, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

During public comment, Barbara Pearson and Carissa Means urged the board to deny permits for a proposed Tri-State fire station expansion and bond (noted March 17, $18 million), citing carcinogenic emissions from vehicle repairs, increased traffic, neighborhood disruption and alleged health impacts.

Several residents used the public-comment period at the Burr Ridge meeting on Feb. 23 to press the board to oppose an expansion of the Tri-State Fire Department.

Barbara Pearson identified herself and said she and nearby neighbors oppose permits to expand the station. She said a March 17 bond is planned for $18 million and warned that Station 123, which services and repairs fire trucks across the Tri-State area, already results in emissions when bay doors are open. "They are putting a bond on March 17 for $18,000,000 to expand the 4 Tri State areas," Pearson said, and she described resident concerns over possible carcinogenic emissions and health impacts.

Carissa Means, who said she lives at 8900 South Madison, argued an expanded facility would increase traffic, noise from sirens and lights and change neighborhood character. She suggested an industrial-park location would be more suitable for heavier maintenance and training activities and asked the Village to be considerate of neighbors.

Pearson said residents had notified the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about their concerns but had not received a response. Both speakers urged the board to deny permits that would allow the expansion to proceed.

There was no formal board action on the permit at the Feb. 23 meeting; public-comment concerns were recorded for the record and may inform future review if a permit application is filed.