Homer Glen trustees adopt resolution opposing county rezoning for proposed Badger facility

The Village of Homer Glen trustees voted to adopt Resolution 26‑014, formally opposing a Will County zoning map amendment that would rezone roughly 36.6 acres from C‑2/R‑2 to C‑4 to allow offices and facilities for a non‑destructive hydro‑excavation company (the Badger project). The action was taken at a special meeting after public comment and a question‑and‑answer session with company and village staff representatives.

The board read the zoning case as submitted to the county (transcript reference “Z C 26 0 2 0”) and then heard from residents and trustees. Trustee Lepore, who moved the item for consideration, said he shared residents’ concerns about traffic and disturbance for households near the corridor. Trustee Holzhauser said the corridor should attract restaurants, shopping and other commercial uses rather than industrial facilities.

Trustee Schaller read an emailed statement from Trustee Nicholas Mueller opposing the rezoning. The email warned of "heavy truck traffic along 159th Street, increase[d] noise, light pollution, potential environmental concerns, and safety risks," and said allowing "up to 80 large trucks per day operating 6 days a week would dramatically change the character of this area." The email text was entered into the record and delivered to the deputy clerk.

Residents who spoke encapsulated the split in local views. Bonnie Willis, a resident and realtor who said she lives across the street from the site, told the trustees she supports the company and believes the parcel is more suited to the proposed use than to other commercial development. Joyce Hale, another nearby resident, pushed back, saying "saying only 30 trucks that weigh 60,000 pounds a piece is not the same as UPS package delivery trucks" and that diesel fumes, overnight refueling and security‑style lighting would negatively affect her backyard and nearby elementary school dismissal routes.

Village staff member Taylor reviewed the village’s 2005 future land‑use plan, saying the plan shows the area as a business park and that business parks should be served by public utilities and be developed with generous setbacks, landscaping and campus‑style environments. Taylor said the "proposed use of private well water probably doesn't conform" to the business‑park vision and noted that the village no longer permits new C‑4 Highway Commercial District developments (existing C‑4 was carried over from Will County and is grandfathered).

Kevin North, the Badger representative, answered trustees’ and residents’ questions about operations. North said the company "operate[s] today in a building with closed doors" and that the planned Homer Glen facility would be enclosed with garage doors rather than merely "under roof." He said trucks would be secured indoors, exterior lighting would be motion‑sensing, and materials the crews collect are typically transported to landfills rather than returned to the site. North said Badger has submitted an application to Illinois American Water and intends to draw from a public water system rather than rely on a private well. He estimated roughly 20,000 gallons per day for operations, said the current regional fleet is about 31 trucks, and estimated "in and outs on a high side" of about 80 vehicle movements per day (including light‑duty trucks). He gave typical hours of operation as about 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. but acknowledged some trucks could return later.

Trustee Lepore reminded the audience that the village's formal resolution is a legal objection, not a veto: "formally opposing the zoning map amendment is not the final word," he said, adding it would change the county board's threshold required to approve the change (the transcript records his phrase "3 force majority"). After the discussion the clerk called the roll; the mayor announced, "Motion carries for our legal objection."

What happens next: the village's resolution will be filed with Will County as part of the record for the zoning case; the county board will consider the submitted application and associated objections. The trustees did not adopt conditions that would directly regulate the company's operations; questions raised at the meeting (truck routing, traffic‑study results, the exact water‑use permit, and exterior lighting details) were left as issues for further review and for the county process.

The meeting ended after the vote and a motion to adjourn.