Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment And Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, townships and watershed groups press Will County to delay Pride of the Prairie amid wetlands and process concerns
Summary
Dozens of residents, township boards and a watershed committee urged the county to delay or deny the Pride of the Prairie permit, arguing the application was incomplete, lacked Army Corps and field NRI materials, and risks drainage, tile and long‑term maintenance problems; the hearing was continued to March 31.
A large group of residents, township officials, watershed committee members and at least one attorney representing adjacent property owners urged the Will County Planning & Zoning Commission to delay or deny the Pride of the Prairie special‑use permit until missing technical reviews are in the public record.
Key objections Several township resolutions opposing the project were entered into the record and multiple speakers said they had not received direct outreach before Earthrise acquired or leased many surrounding parcels. Attorney Steve Becker, speaking for multiple adjacent owners, told the commission that the filing was incomplete: "There are no proper field tests under the NRI," he said, and he noted that required site‑development permit materials and Army Corps jurisdictional reviews had not been provided for public review.
Watershed and drainage concerns Members of the watershed committee and several township supervisors said many of the leased parcels contain creek channels, stream forks or wetlands that require federal and state jurisdictional review. Thomas Becker, chairman of the watershed committee, told the commission he identified dozens of project parcels that intersect Fork Creek, Prairie Creek or their wetlands and said Army Corps and IDNR reviews are required before panels can be sited.
Property‑value and quality‑of‑life concerns Multiple nearby residents and homeowners said they feared loss of rural character, visual blight and declines in property values for homes and small farms. One resident noted a petition with hundreds of signatures and multiple township boards passed resolutions opposing the application. Others worried about fire risk with tall grass, management of vegetation over decades and accountability if developer ownership changes.
Supporters’ response and labor backing Union representatives and business advocates urged approval, emphasizing local jobs, apprenticeship opportunities and tax revenues. Several union speakers described project labor agreements or local hiring commitments and urged the commission to consider economic benefits while noting that operational and maintenance staff will be assigned to the site after construction.
Procedure and next steps Because public comment extended late into the evening, the commission recessed the meeting and voted to continue at 5:30 p.m. on March 31 to allow further testimony and for applicants and staff to supply any outstanding documents. No final vote on the special‑use permit or variances occurred on March 30.
What to watch for next Residents and township officials asked the commission to require any missing Army Corps jurisdictional determinations, complete NRI field inspections, clear tile and drainage repair plans, and enforceable landscape/maintenance guarantees before moving to a recommendation. The commission’s March 31 session will be the next opportunity for additional evidence and for the board to clarify whether the record is sufficiently complete for a recommendation.
