Roselle board reviews JetBrite site changes and hears nearby businesses’ access, runoff and economic concerns

The Village Board reviewed an updated site plan July 13 for a proposed JetBrite car wash at Roselle Road and Nergie Road and heard local business owners raise traffic, stormwater and economic concerns.

Community Development Manager Karen Brickser told trustees the petitioner removed the left‑out onto Roselle Road and revised interior site elements; the updated plan makes the Roselle Road approach right‑in/right‑out only. Brickser said the property is partially unincorporated, which means the project will need to go through annexation and a public hearing; the village attorney and staff discussed whether the public hearing could be held at the village‑board level to speed the process rather than routing the item back to planning and zoning.

Nearby property owners and business representatives said the revised access still raised safety and business‑impact concerns. Ted Sacca (appearing for a local property owner) told the board he is concerned about driveway proximity, the distance between entrances, and stormwater runoff: “They are outletting directly into the Nergie and Roselle Road systems,” he said, noting the site’s existing impervious area and detention patterns. He said nearby lots rely on a detention area behind his shop.

Jacob China, who identified himself as representing the adjacent Shell station, said approving the JetBrite as proposed would kill a pending sale for his property and could force his business to close because of lost buyer interest. “If this gets approved, it’s gonna kill our deal and all the kind of property tax we’ve been paying for that property,” he told the board.

Trustees asked whether the revised plan had met conditions previously recommended by planning and zoning; Brickser replied that JetBrite had met other recommended conditions (a taller sound‑attenuation fence in the back and limits on music), and that staff would confirm whether re‑routing the public hearing to the village board is legally permissible. County staff had no issue with driveway spacing, Brickser said, and staff estimated the proposed development would not drain onto adjacent properties. Trustees directed staff to proceed with required public‑hearing notifications and confirmed residents and stakeholders would have the opportunity to comment at the public hearing.

No formal action was taken; the board will consider the annexation and permitting steps required before the project advances to any vote.