Trustees deny Ash Pallet site plan for 710 Anita Avenue over wetlands, road and park-safety concerns

Antioch trustees voted to deny a site-plan proposal from Ash Pallet for a trailer-storage yard at 710 Anita Avenue, citing concerns about wetlands impacts, roadway wear and public-safety risks to Centennial Park.

The decision followed a judge-ordered hearing in which the applicant and its traffic engineer presented an updated traffic study and a site plan that includes parking for 48 trailers and a proposed future 5,200-square-foot maintenance building. Applicant counsel said the traffic study was submitted to the village on August 1 and requested that the board be allowed to vote on the plan. "The traffic study was submitted on August the 1 to council for the village," counsel stated.

Traffic consultant Steve Poren summarized the counts for trustees: "In the morning from 7:45 to 8:45 there was a total in front of our site 129 vehicles per hour," and evening peak counts were about 196 vehicles per hour. Poren said the study projects one to two truck trips per hour attributable to the new yard, and that overall level-of-service would remain acceptable; he recommended one inbound and one outbound driveway with the outbound controlled by a stop sign.

Despite the study and staff recommendations, trustees and nearby residents pressed concerns about trucks operating adjacent to Centennial Park during periods of heavy park use, the potential to cross wetlands (with Army Corps permitting noted as necessary), noise from diesel engines and the effect of heavy vehicles on village streets. One trustee argued that the property’s proximity to the park and existing wetlands made the site unsuitable.

Trustee Pierce moved to deny Resolution 24-72 "based upon the impact on roads, the impact on wetlands and the safety of the park," and asked that permit fees be refunded; a second was recorded and a roll-call vote was taken. The motion carried with six voting yes, after which the board closed the hearing. The denial records the board’s formal objection to the site plan as presented; the applicant said it reserved the right to seek judicial review and indicated it believes it is entitled to a vote.

Next steps: staff will update the record per the court order and advise on any appeal or resubmission. The board’s formal denial will be reported back to the court as required by the judge’s earlier order.

Sources: testimony and exhibits presented during the board’s judge-ordered hearing, including summary comments from applicant counsel Isis, site-plan presentation by Mr. Christensen and traffic analysis by Steve Poren.