OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Woodstock Planning Commission Public Hearing on Super Aggregates Gravel Pit Expansion - January 26, 2026

City Council — Monday, January 26, 2026
BodyWoodstock, Illinois
SessionCity Council
DateMonday, January 26, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:10:23

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

I just wish people will tell the truth.

0:02

Thank you.

0:06

All right.

0:07

Joe, do you want to comment on staff before we're chimney?

0:10

I'm sorry.

0:13

Just all of them recommendation continue within the supply additional materials.

0:18

Okay.

0:18

So now we're going to move on to questions once we've received and comments once we received all the materials.

0:26

Members of the commission, if it's okay.

0:27

And we can just move on to public comment first.

0:29

Yeah.

0:34

Absolutely.

0:38

The one thing that stands out most in my mind, Mr.

0:41

Hammond and Mr.

0:42

Peace, you made reference to the toll under the roller tracks, and that you're in the wrong process of obtaining that.

0:50

And I guess the question in my mind is what happens if you do not get that comment.

0:57

First of all, um absent that permit, it would be significant impediment to uh doing any uh uh extraction on that order uh personal.

1:08

Uh so uh our uh petition before you uh can have that as a condition of the uh approval process.

1:19

Okay, so if I don't understand your response correctly, uh if there is no permit for the tunnel, then there would not be the extraction of the north side of the tracks, is that correct?

1:31

That's correct.

1:31

Okay, so there's no contingency plan and we'll have trucks going up down the farm carwall.

1:38

Not at the moment the uh presently uh we believe that the Pacific Railroad will grant uh ultimately provided that we control them uh that we provide proper engineering that do the construction of the tunnel.

1:52

Keep in mind the the railroad cannot uh fix up any interruption in the service of that line under any circumstance at all.

2:00

And because the railroad has to have uh the assurances that the construction is done, and of course uh it requires that their engineers review anything that is being going to be done uh to excavate or undermine uh the integrity of that area underneath the railroad.

2:18

And so uh uh that tunnel that we envision uh installing uh you know is critical to the conveyor system that we envision be part of the separate process.

2:38

Okay, and what the public has all right now moving on to public comments and questions by members of the public, or we have a list of sign-up sheet and less they have the added, so we'll just go one by one.

2:51

First up will be Carrie Bauman.

2:53

If you can please approach the microphone, give your name and address to the record.

2:59

My name is Carrie Bauchman, like G H is digraph, like in LA Bauchman.

3:05

I live at 2444, very circle.

3:08

Can I have your raise your right hand, please?

3:10

Do you assume that testimony about the game for what's that plan, which is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

3:15

So we have you may proceed.

3:17

So what I heard was if we get the conveyor vote tonight.

3:20

That's a big if.

3:22

And what if it doesn't happen in that land is annexed and given him that zoning right?

3:27

That changes everything dramatically.

3:29

So that's a big if.

3:30

And we've worked with UP before on other projects in this city, and we know they don't get.

3:35

So that's one one point.

3:37

The other point I had, um, and what I heard Mr.

3:41

Pomont, I I appreciate you taking the time to come out and inform us.

3:45

Um, but what I heard was sacrifice your health or our wealth.

3:50

And these people who came out tonight, thank you for coming out, especially the kids who sat here and listened and get to see how it takes an action and why we vote and what makes America great.

4:01

Um my health is important to me, my health and my family, the health of these individuals, and it is not about mining that it's about is taking away the layers that create the natural filters in that area that contaminate the water.

4:18

Let's be clear about that.

4:20

Other people will speak to those points.

4:22

So um I emailed Mr.

4:24

Mac who told me no.

4:26

I'm sorry if I didn't say that correctly, um, and some other city members, because the mailings that went out were sent um supposed to go to people within 250 feet, and there are two addresses in my neighborhood, 2466 and 2480 that when you Google map it, they are within 250 feet through the right-of-ways.

4:48

And when you go out with a walking wheel, which my husband has because he was a landscape designer for 20 years, also measures out that they should have been notified.

5:00

The other part on notification on page six, it says for all public hearings, except for a variation request.

5:05

The owners of all property within 250 feet of the subject property, excluding all public right-away shall be notified.

5:12

The petitioner shall notify by first class mail.

5:15

Either the owner has recorded in the Henry County recorder deeds office, or the persons who last pay property taxes are reflected in the tax records of the McHenry County Treasurer.

5:24

So there it says that the petitioner, so I'd like to know why my tax dollars pay for those things to go out.

5:31

This is what you have as your ordinances and your guiding lines.

5:48

The city has decided to take that over to in an attempt to avoid problems such as what you're alleging it has happened, so that we we know the 250 feet and we're able to send that out.

6:04

Every developer is required to submit a um we we call it a retained personnel amount, and those uh dollars are used to pay for things, such as the notifications, um, the attorneys.

6:20

Um your tax dollars aren't being used to for the city staff to do this, it's being paid by the developer uh through this this retained personnel.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Public Engagement███████████████████████23%
Environmental Protection██████████████████████22%
Public Safety█████████████████17%
Engineering And Infrastructure████████████████16%
Procedural███████7%
Transportation Safety█████5%
Community Engagement███3%
Parks and Recreation██2%
Economic Development██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Woodstock Planning Commission Public Hearing on Super Aggregates Gravel Pit Expansion - January 26, 2026

The Woodstock Planning Commission held a public hearing on a petition by Land Reserves LLC, represented by Jack Bees, to rezone approximately 128 acres at Lily Pond Road and McConnell Road from agricultural to light industrial and to approve a special use permit for mining, rock crushing, asphalt, concrete, and ready-mix operations. The proposed expansion, intended to last at least 15 years, would annex the property into the city. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed, citing health, environmental, and property value concerns. The commission voted to continue the hearing to February 19, 2026, to allow the petitioner to provide additional documentation, particularly regarding a proposed tunnel under Union Pacific railroad tracks.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Carrie Bauman (2444 Fairview Circle): Opposed, questioning the likelihood of obtaining a Union Pacific tunnel permit and arguing that the project sacrifices health for wealth. Raised notification errors for properties within 250 feet.
  • Peter Reese (2425 River Circle): Opposed, detailed cost-benefit analysis including lost tax revenue from a lake (not a park), property value declines of 5–30%, and the difficulty of obtaining railroad crossing permits.
  • Jeffrey Paulson (2466 Fairview Circle): Opposed, argued improper notification (within 250 feet of property line including right-of-way) violated zoning ordinance. Stated health risks from silica dust, diesel exhaust, and groundwater contamination for nearby residents, children, and seniors.
  • Becky Paulson (2466 Fairview Circle): Opposed, emphasized water contamination risks in EPA Class 3 groundwater protection area, loss of natural filtration, and cumulative impacts on Boone Creek watershed.
  • Zach Romany (2013 Red Barn Road): Opposed, shared personal history of asthma near gravel pits, cited noise and dust, noted that IDOT contracts could allow after-hours work under emergency provisions, and pointed to other proposed sites that were rejected by McHenry.
  • Damien Kimbrough (Ponds of Bull Valley neighborhood): Opposed, spoke about noise, dust, road safety, and loss of wildlife; asked to protect the neighborhood.
  • Susan Jensen (8411 Crystal Springs Road, Boone Dutch Creek Watershed Alliance board): Opposed, explained that the lake would expose the aquifer to contamination; watershed alliance formally opposes.
  • Michael Gajewski (17 Greenview Drive): Opposed, said the project contradicts the city's comprehensive plan (residential future on page 24, industrial uses should be away from housing).
  • David “Greg” Fisk (1401 East Finch Court, Sanctuary of Bull Valley): Opposed, questioned lack of park from previous pit, noted a private well on the property, and criticized noise and dust from existing operations.
  • William Martinson (3221 Lily Pond Road): Opposed, lived adjacent for 35 years; reported early morning operations (3:30 AM), dust on property, and that promised lake and ballpark never materialized.
  • Tony Halfman (417 McConnell Road): Opposed, noted wildlife impact and noise despite berm.
  • Jeremy Stolt (2473 Fairview Circle): Opposed, emotional testimony about wife’s death, new partner with compromised immune system, and desire to stay in the community.
  • Marcie Bertelsman (3004 Lily Pond Road): Opposed, raised safety on Lily Pond Road, trucks not adhering to routes.
  • Tre Living (2457 Fairview Circle): Questioned why Jack Bees invested $3 million in agricultural land without assurance of rezoning.
  • Fondra Hak (2025 Greenview Drive): Questioned timeline (lake took 5 years in Waterford, but 15 years proposed here), DNR jurisdiction, and eco-cat reports.
  • Dennis Shallo (2416 Ashton Drive, Applewood): Distrustful of petitioner’s claims about noise and dust; questioned commission’s impartiality.
  • Marisa Romme (2013 Red Barn Road): Asked to quantify after-hours operations.
  • Additional speakers: Several other residents opposed, emphasizing health, property values, and inconsistency with the comprehensive plan.
  • Chris Albia (Spring Grove): Clarified that pipeline project noise was not from the pit, and train vibrations are unrelated.

Discussion Items

  • Tunnel under Union Pacific Railroad: Petitioner stated that without the tunnel permit, extraction on the north side cannot proceed. Commissioner questions about contingency plans; petitioner responded that they believe the permit will be granted.
  • Notification and right-of-way measurement: Staff confirmed that the 250-foot notification rule excludes public right-of-way; residents disputed measurements. Commission acknowledged the issue and will check city code.
  • Operations hours and after-hours work: Petitioner said operations are 7 AM–7 PM, five days a week with occasional Saturday. Emergency exceptions occur about three times in nine years; police are notified. Residents cited early morning noise and dust.
  • Water and environmental impact: Multiple speakers highlighted the EPA Class 3 groundwater protection area, risks to aquifers, and lack of testing. Petitioner mentioned monitoring wells required by UDO.
  • Comprehensive plan conflict: Residents cited the city's 2024 comprehensive plan that designates the area as future residential and calls for protecting natural resources.
  • Economic analysis: Commission clarified that financial impacts (tax revenue, property values) are not part of planning commission criteria but may be considered by city council.
  • Existing pit reclamation: Petitioner explained the south pit reclamation is underway, but the north side is a separate expansion.

Key Outcomes

  • The commission approved a motion to continue the public hearing to February 19, 2026, at 7:00 PM (at City Hall, or possibly larger venue).
  • The petitioner was directed to provide additional materials, particularly documentation regarding the Union Pacific tunnel permit and any other requested information.
  • No vote was taken on the rezoning or special use permit; the continuation allows further public comment and review.
  • Staff indicated that a new mailing and public notice will be issued for the continued hearing, and interested parties can sign up for email reminders.

Meeting Transcript

I just wish people will tell the truth. Thank you. All right. Joe, do you want to comment on staff before we're chimney? I'm sorry. Just all of them recommendation continue within the supply additional materials. Okay. So now we're going to move on to questions once we've received and comments once we received all the materials. Members of the commission, if it's okay. And we can just move on to public comment first. Yeah. Absolutely. The one thing that stands out most in my mind, Mr. Hammond and Mr. Peace, you made reference to the toll under the roller tracks, and that you're in the wrong process of obtaining that. And I guess the question in my mind is what happens if you do not get that comment. First of all, um absent that permit, it would be significant impediment to uh doing any uh uh extraction on that order uh personal. Uh so uh our uh petition before you uh can have that as a condition of the uh approval process. Okay, so if I don't understand your response correctly, uh if there is no permit for the tunnel, then there would not be the extraction of the north side of the tracks, is that correct? That's correct. Okay, so there's no contingency plan and we'll have trucks going up down the farm carwall. Not at the moment the uh presently uh we believe that the Pacific Railroad will grant uh ultimately provided that we control them uh that we provide proper engineering that do the construction of the tunnel. Keep in mind the the railroad cannot uh fix up any interruption in the service of that line under any circumstance at all. And because the railroad has to have uh the assurances that the construction is done, and of course uh it requires that their engineers review anything that is being going to be done uh to excavate or undermine uh the integrity of that area underneath the railroad. And so uh uh that tunnel that we envision uh installing uh you know is critical to the conveyor system that we envision be part of the separate process. Okay, and what the public has all right now moving on to public comments and questions by members of the public, or we have a list of sign-up sheet and less they have the added, so we'll just go one by one. First up will be Carrie Bauman. If you can please approach the microphone, give your name and address to the record. My name is Carrie Bauchman, like G H is digraph, like in LA Bauchman. I live at 2444, very circle. Can I have your raise your right hand, please? Do you assume that testimony about the game for what's that plan, which is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So we have you may proceed. So what I heard was if we get the conveyor vote tonight. That's a big if. And what if it doesn't happen in that land is annexed and given him that zoning right? That changes everything dramatically. So that's a big if. And we've worked with UP before on other projects in this city, and we know they don't get. So that's one one point. The other point I had, um, and what I heard Mr. Pomont, I I appreciate you taking the time to come out and inform us. Um, but what I heard was sacrifice your health or our wealth. And these people who came out tonight, thank you for coming out, especially the kids who sat here and listened and get to see how it takes an action and why we vote and what makes America great. Um my health is important to me, my health and my family, the health of these individuals, and it is not about mining that it's about is taking away the layers that create the natural filters in that area that contaminate the water. Let's be clear about that. Other people will speak to those points. So um I emailed Mr. Mac who told me no. I'm sorry if I didn't say that correctly, um, and some other city members, because the mailings that went out were sent um supposed to go to people within 250 feet, and there are two addresses in my neighborhood, 2466 and 2480 that when you Google map it, they are within 250 feet through the right-of-ways.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com