Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge trustees to reject lights, noise and traffic tied to Bennett stadium special‑use proposal
Summary
Multiple residents told the village board that Bennett's proposal for a lighted stadium would harm nearby homes through noise, glare, traffic and reduced property values; speakers urged denial of lighting and stronger enforceable conditions.
Several Lisle residents addressed the village board during public comment on March 16 to oppose a proposed special‑use permit for Bennett's stadium expansion, focusing on late‑night lighting, amplified sound, traffic at Maple Avenue and potential downward pressure on property values.
"I want to continue experiencing Bennett's exceptional graduation ceremony from the comfort of my home," resident Linda Donahue said, then described direct impacts to her backyard from lights, sound and crowds. Catherine Warren, who said she has lived in Oak Hill South for seven years, asked trustees to set aside personal feelings and "focus solely on the interests of your constituents and the standards set by this village," arguing the project would prevent neighbors from "enjoying their backyards" and could allow noise to exceed the village's 55‑decibel limit "until 10:30 or 11 at night." She also told the board that only "8% of Bennett students live in Lisle," questioning community benefit.
Jim Mokarski criticized the applicant's revised conditions as "legalese" that would make enforcement difficult, saying the proposal's violation thresholds — which he described as requiring multiple simultaneous noncompliances before enforcement — would allow ongoing breaches. "Get it built and compliance won't matter," Jim Mokarski said, adding that a non‑lit stadium would avoid safety and scheduling problems while protecting homeowners.
Supporters of Bennett also were present and were acknowledged by board leadership, but the public comment at this meeting was dominated by opposition urging the board to deny an exemption for lights or to adopt strict, enforceable conditions. Several residents asked the board for compromise from the applicant and more clearly enforceable consequences for violations.
The board acknowledged receipt of comments and said discussion of the matter would continue at a future meeting; no formal vote on the special‑use permit was recorded at this session.
