Latest / Kendall County News - Shaw Local / Third lawsuit filed trying to halt Yorkville data centers, second by community organization

Transcript

Third lawsuit filed trying to halt Yorkville data centers, second by community organization · Kendall County News - Shaw Local

• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Third lawsuit filed trying to halt Yorkville data centers, second
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: by community organization, Written by Joey Weslow, This article is
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: being read by an automated voice brought to you by Everlett.
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: Another chapter in Yorkville's data center's development is being written
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: as a third lawsuit was filed to halt construction of
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: one of the three city approved data center campuses. This
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: lawsuit is taking aim at the five hundred forty acre
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: Project Steel and its sixteen to two story warehouses, to
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: be built over a twenty year construction period along the
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: Eldermain Road corridor. The suit argues the city failed to
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: follow public notice rules before rezoning the land for the project.
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: It also argues the sound, traffic, environmental and propriety value
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: studies were not comprehensive in taking into account the lengthy
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: period of construction and the close proc of the other
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: data center projects approved by the city. The suit asks
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: the court to rule the city's rezoning for Project Steel
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: as invalid. It seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, halting
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: construction pending judicial review. The lawsuit is the second by
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: the community based organization Preserve Our Yorkville and Community LLC,
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: which previously filed assault to halt the one thousand and
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: thirty four acre Project Cardinal Data Center with fourteen warehouses
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: across seventeen million square feet. The plaintiffs in that suit
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: argue the city failed to properly notify residents in the
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: immediate area of the project prior to the city approving
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: the annexation and rezoning of the property. The city is
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: facing another lawsuit regarding Project Cardinal, filed by resident John Bryan,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: who is arguing the construction will negatively impact his property
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: values and quality of life. In the new lawsuit against
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: the city and Project Steel's developers, pro Logius LLC, Themmunity
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: Organization is joined as plaintiffs by Lori Tuesca, Patti Baccala,
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: Pebe's pup Palace LLC, Joan MacArthur, Maplehurst Farm Raising LLC,
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: and Maplehurst Veternracy Services LLC. The lawsuit is requesting declaratory
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: and injunctive relief and is not seeking monetary damages. The
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs are asking the court to rule whether the city
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: followed proper procedures required for Project Steels rezoning and whether
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: the impact studies were adequate enough before the City council's vote.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: A case management conference is set for August seventh at
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: the Kendall County Courthouse. The lawsuit was first filed with
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: the Kendall County Circuit Court on May twenty second. Chuck
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: Casper of Preserve Our Yorkville and Community, LLC, said the
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: city is sweeping aside the basic procedural protections that Illinois
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: law guarantees every property owner. The city has admitted in
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: writing on its own website that the required notice for
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: the project Steel public hearing was never given. Casper said
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: in a release by the organization. Our neighbors deserve to
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: be heard and the law deserves to be followed. This
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: is not about being antidevelopment. It is about asking our
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: local government to follow its own rules and its own
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: adopted plans. City's website says the project was revised by
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: the developers on March eighteen, twenty twenty six. It says
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: the official public hearing took place on August thirteenth, twenty
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: twenty five. When reached for comment, City administrator bart Olson
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: said the city does not have any comment on active litigation.
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: Casper said the Data Center rezoning approvals are inconsistent with
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: the cities twenty sixteen Comprehensive Plan, and that residents and
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: landowners have a right to ask the courts to look
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: at the city's processes. Near unanimous approval for Project Steels annexation, rezoning,
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: and peued came on March twenty fourth after multiple hours
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: of public comments, with city residents nearly unanimously voicing opposition
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: to the project. The near unanimous vote for Project Steel
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: came after little discussion by any aldermen. The vote mirrored
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: the previous approvals for Project Cardinal and the two hundred
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: twenty eight acre cyrus Ie Data Center. The city was
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: previously entertaining around a dozen separate data center projects stretched
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: across more than three thousand acres in the Aldermain Road
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: corridor before the tide turned. On April fourteenth, developers for
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: the eighty acre Meyer Data Center withdrew their proposal after
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: losing city council support, and then Mayor John Purcell announced
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: there's no more appetite from city council for data center
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: proposals outside of the three already approved. Alleged violations within
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: the lawsuit against Project Steel, the plaintiffs argue the city
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: failed to provide the required public notice before the votes.
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: The lawsuit cites the posting on the city website because
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: no public hearing notices were published and no mailings were
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: sent to nearby property owners for the previously schedule July ninth,
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty five Planning and Zoning meeting. The August thirteenth,
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty five meeting will serve as the official public hearing.
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: Illinois law requires the city to post in a newspaper
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: publication and mail notices to property owners within two hundred
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: and fifty feet of the property being rezoned before any
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: public hearing can be held. The city's rules require everyone
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: within five hundred feet to be notified. The plaintiffs argue
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: after the initial public hearing, the developers revising the number
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: of buildings from twenty four buildings down to sixteen and
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: from three to four electrical substations necessitated a new public
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: hearing because the updates made the project materially different from
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: the project for which any public hearing was held. Because
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: of the alleged failure to public notice, the suit claims
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: the March twenty fourth City Council meeting at which Project
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: Steal was approved was conducted in violation of the Illinois
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: Open Meetings Act I. The lawsuit further argues the traffic
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: studies did not analyze construction period, truck and haul route
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: traffic over the multi year construction period, or the cumulative
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: traffic effect of simultaneous data center projects being constructed at once. Likewise,
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: the lawsuit said the cities sound and noise studies failed
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: to address the lengthy construction period or any type of
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: cumulative effects from the multiple construction projects. The lawsuit claims
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: studies also failed to address potential impacts on NUD sensitive
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: adjacent businesses, including a dog daycare, a boarding business, and
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: an equine racing training and veterinary operation. The plaintiffs argue
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: this is compounded by the city's incomplete water and hydrological studies,
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: air quality analysis, and cumulative environmental impact studies before votes
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: were taken. The lawsuit also cites the ninety one million
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: dollars developmental agreements the developers of both Project Cardinal and
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: Projects are suscending to the city. The plaintiffs argue the
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: package was expressly conditioned on full approval of both projects,
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: meaning a financial interdependence likely prevented the rezoning for Project
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: Steel being considered on its individual merits. The city has
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: not released a public statement addressing the lawsuit.