LaSalle County residents urge thorough review of proposed Fox River Reserve redevelopment

Residents and speakers at a LaSalle County public meeting called on county officials to subject a proposed redevelopment of the former Fox River Resort (referred to in public remarks as Fox River Reserve/Foxgrove) to a full, independent review before any approvals are considered.

"This project deserves that same level of review," Jonathan Bisser said, identifying himself as a resident and saying the plan includes "approximately 332 condominium‑style units on roughly 165 acres," which he said could bring "well over 1,000 and potentially close to 2,000 additional residents." He urged health‑care impact, EMS and law‑enforcement capacity reviews, and fiscal and infrastructure analyses.

Brian Kaba, introduced to the meeting by the moderator, read from local permitting history and argued the parcel’s prior permit and its conditions may limit residential conversion. "This is a legal binding contract," Kaba said, asserting that if the property’s permitted use does not proceed the permit would be void and the land would revert to campground or agricultural use.

Nicole Wertman and other longtime residents outlined local public‑safety and infrastructure concerns, saying the area has two‑lane roads with no shoulders, limited EMS and fire resources and reduced hospital capacity. Wertman said the property had "close to 350 police callouts in 7 years" when it previously operated and recommended traffic‑impact and school‑capacity studies.

Speakers asked the county to require that the developer provide engineering studies, environmental assessments, traffic reports, stormwater analyses, fiscal‑impact studies, and documentation of the developer’s financial capacity and compliance history before permitting high‑density residential use. "Residents should have access to development plans, engineering studies, environmental assessments, traffic studies, infrastructure evaluations, and fiscal impact analysis before decisions are made," Bisser said.

No formal vote, motion, or county decision is recorded in the transcript. The public comments included appeals to require special‑use or planned‑unit‑development applications be evaluated in full and to verify whether prior special‑use permissions remain valid.

The public‑comment period also included speakers who described community character changes after earlier resort operations and asked that officials analyze likely long‑term taxpayer costs if emergency and school needs must be met by local governments.

Next steps recorded in public remarks were requests that the board require impact studies and that staff or decisionmakers verify permit status and developer background; the transcript does not show whether the county committed to any of those specific next steps.