Homer Glen board adopts resolution opposing Will County rezoning for Badger facility

The Village of Homer Glen Board of Trustees voted to adopt Resolution No. 26-014 on a voice/roll-call vote to formally oppose a Will County zoning map amendment (ZC26020) that would rezone about 36.6 acres from C2/R2 to C4 for offices and facilities for a non-destructive hydro-excavation company operated by Badger.

The resolution, introduced on the special meeting agenda as item E, was moved by Trustee Lepore and seconded by Trustee Holzhauser. After public comment and a brief staff presentation, the board reinstated the rules, completed a roll call and the presiding official stated, "Motion carries for our legal objection." Trustee LaCour, Trustee Holzhauser, Trustee Schaller and Trustee Reinders recorded "Aye" votes during the roll call.

Why it matters: trustees and residents said the rezoning would change the corridor's character and bring heavy truck traffic, noise, lighting and water-use impacts to nearby neighborhoods. Trustee Schaller read an emailed statement from Trustee Nicholas Mueller that warned the development could allow "up to 80 large trucks per day operating 6 days a week," increase noise and light pollution, raise safety concerns tied to truck refueling, and negatively affect property values.

Residents' remarks: Bonnie Willis, who said she lives across the street from the parcel, urged the board to consider that deep, narrow parcels are unlikely to produce the restaurants and shopping the corridor envisions and described Badger as a "class act" with trucks stored inside. Joyce Hale told trustees the proposed use is not comparable to a storage facility and raised health and safety concerns: "Thirty trucks that weigh 60,000 pounds a piece ... that's not the same as UPS package delivery trucks," she said, and she questioned whether equipment would be truly "in a building" or merely "under roof," noting that the proposal's wording appeared to say "under roof."

Developer response: Badger's representative answered residents' questions at the podium and described planned mitigations. He said operations would be conducted in an enclosed building with garage doors rather than being merely "under roof," and that trucks are "secured inside the building." He said the company typically does not bring back contamination to the yard (any manifested materials would go to a landfill), that the firm has experience working with Illinois EPA processes, and that current operations elsewhere include about 31 trucks and roughly 40 field employees plus 10–15 office staff.

On utilities and routing, the Badger representative said the company has applied to American Illinois Water to use that system and estimated average water use at about 20,000 gallons per day. He said the site plan includes a septic system for employee restroom use, that proposed truck routing will be designed to meet vehicle limits and access main thoroughfares and interstates, and that the company is conducting a traffic study to better understand local patterns. He also said the firm does not intend to grow the fleet substantially beyond its current size, but on a high day they estimate up to 80 in-and-outs including light-duty trucks.

Planning context: Taylor, planning staff, said the village's 2005 future land use plan designates the area near I-355 as business park, describing expected uses as compatible office, research and business park environments with performance standards for noise, vibration and air pollution. Taylor noted the village code no longer allows new map amendments into the C4 highway-commercial district and that the site's C4 status is grandfathered from Will County; staff indicated the proposed use would likely be classified as a contractor office and that the village does not have a discrete "business park" zoning category to use for an exact code-level match.

Board action and next steps: The board's formal opposition is a legal objection filed by the village to the county rezoning request; as Trustee Lepore reminded the audience, that objection does not decide the county's outcome but was described by a trustee as increasing the voting threshold the county board would need to pass the change. The matter will next move to Will County for its review and decision on ZC26020.

The board adjourned after the vote.