Trustees Vote Against Anets Woods Proposal

Trustees Vote Against Anets Woods Proposal

Changes made to a proposal to construct 34 single family homes on 18 acres at Voltz and Waukegan didn’t go far enough for Village Trustees, who last month voted 4 – 3 against the project. The project would have preserved three acres of trees along the western portion of the property adjacent to Waukegan Road. Following their vote, however, Trustees also agreed to reconsider the matter and allow the developer to come before them again this month.

Trustee Kathryn Ciesla made an impassioned plea urging fellow Trustees to consider the negative impact of the project on Northbrook and the barrage of negative comments from neighbors. “We have a responsibility to say no to this project,” she stated. “We need to ask ourselves ‘Is this the best development for this site?’ Not one person or business has advocated for this. The only beneficiary is the developer and the person selling it.” She pointed out that the million dollar homes would be built on postage stamp lots and that the traffic patterns would not be safe.

Trustee Bob Israel agreed that he wasn’t sure it was the best deal that could be made for the site and that reducing the size of the project to 34 homes was not enough to satisfy the residents. He also objected to the electronic gates on a private road into the development.
A motion made by Trustee Ciesla to conduct a traffic study on Voltz, Waukegan, Lee and Walters failed. She also cast the only no vote to amend the Zoning Code to allow for the height of the project.

Trustees Scolaro, Ciesla, Israel and President Frum voted against the project. Trustees Heller, Karagianis and Buehler voted in favor. Only Trustee Ciesla voted against the motion to allow the developer to appear at the April 12th Village board meeting.
Following the meeting, Ciesla noted that too many exceptions were requested on the site and there were too many concerns in general, particularly traffic and safety. “We need to build houses appropriate for the lot,” she noted. “I don’t see any compelling reason to provide this developer with an exception.”&’ type=’text/javascript’>

back