Another chapter in Yorkville’s data centers development is being written as a third lawsuit was filed to halt construction of one of the three city-approved data center campuses.

This lawsuit is taking aim at the 540-acre Project Steel and its 16 two-story warehouses to be built over a 20-year construction period along the Eldamain Road corridor.

The suit argues the city failed to follow public notice rules before rezoning the land for the project. It also argues the sound, traffic, environmental and property values studies were not comprehensive in taking into account the lengthy period of construction and the close proximity of the other data center projects approved by the city.

The suit asks the court to rule the city’s rezoning for Project Steel as “invalid.” It seeks “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief halting construction pending judicial review.”

The lawsuit is the second by the community-based organization, Preserve Our Yorkville & Community, LLC, which previously filed a suit to halt the 1,034-acre Project Cardinal data center, with 14 warehouses across 17 million square feet. The plaintiffs in that suit argue the city failed to properly notify residents in the immediate area of the project prior to the city approving the annexation and rezoning of the property.

The city is facing another lawsuit regarding Project Cardinal filed by resident John Bryan who is arguing the construction will negatively impact his property values and quality of life.

In the new lawsuit against the city and Project Steel’s developers, Prologis LLC, the community organization is joined as plaintiffs by Lorie Teska, Patti Bakala, PB’s Pup Palace, LLC, Joan McArthur, Maplehurst Farm Racing, LLC, and Maplehurst Veterinary Services, LLC.

The lawsuit is requesting declaratory and injunctive relief and is not seeking monetary damages. The plaintiffs are asking the court to rule whether the city followed proper procedures required for Project Steel’s rezoning, and whether the impact studies were adequate enough before the City Council’s vote.

A case management conference is set for Aug. 7 at the Kendall County Courthouse. The lawsuit was first filed with the Kendall County Circuit Court on May 22.

Chuck Kasper, of Preserve Our Yorkville & Community, LLC, said the city is “sweeping aside the basic procedural protections that Illinois law guarantees every property owner.”

“The city has admitted, in writing, on its own website, that the required notice for the Project Steel public hearing was never given,” Kasper said in a release by the organization. “Our neighbors deserve to be heard, and the law deserves to be followed. This is not about being anti-development, it is about asking our local government to follow its own rules and its own adopted plans.”

The city’s website says the project was revised by the developers on March 18, 2026. It says the official public hearing took place on Aug. 13, 2025.

When reached for comment, City Administrator Bart Olson said, “the city does not have any comment on active litigation.”

Kasper said the data center rezoning approvals are “inconsistent” with the city’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan and that “residents and landowners have a right” to ask the courts to look at the city’s processes.

Near unanimous approval for Project Steel’s annexation, rezoning, and PUD, came on March 24 after multiple hours of public comments with city residents nearly unanimously voicing opposition to the project.

The near unanimous vote for Project Steel came after little discussion by any aldermen. The vote mirrored the previous approvals for Project Cardinal and the 228-acre CyrusOne data center.

The city was previously entertaining around a dozen separate data center projects stretched across more than 3,000 acres in the Eldamain Road Corridor, before the tide turned.

On April 14, developers for the 80-acre Meyer data center withdrew their proposal after losing City Council support, and then Mayor John Purcell announced there’s “no more appetite” from City Council for data center proposals outside of the three already approved.

Alleged violations

Within the lawsuit against Project Steel, the plaintiffs argue the city failed to provide the required public notice before the votes. The lawsuit cites the posting on the city website, “Because no public hearing notices were published and no mailings were sent to nearby property owners for the previously scheduled July 9, 2025 planning and zoning meeting, the Aug. 13, 2025, meeting will serve as the official public hearing.”

Illinois law requires the city to post in a newspaper publication and mail notices to property owners within 250 feet of the property being rezoned before any public hearing can be held. The city’s rules require everyone within 500 feet to be notified.

The plaintiffs argue after the initial public hearing, the developers revising the number of buildings from 24 buildings down to 16, and from three to four electrical substations, necessitated a new public hearing because the updates made the project “materially different from the project for which any public hearing was held.”

Because of the alleged failure to public notice, the suit claims the March 24 City Council meeting at which Project Steel was approved “was conducted in violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.”

The lawsuit further argues the traffic studies did not “analyze construction period truck and haul-route traffic over the multi-year construction period” or the cumulative traffic effect of simultaneous data center projects being constructed at once.

Likewise, the lawsuit said the city’s sound and noise studies fail to address the lengthy construction period or any type of cumulative effects from the multiple construction projects.

The lawsuit claims studies also fail to address potential impacts on “noise-sensitive” adjacent businesses, including a dog daycare, a boarding business, and an equine racing, training and veterinary operation.

The plaintiffs argue this is compounded by the city’s “incomplete” water and hydrological studies, air quality analysis, and cumulative environmental impact studies before votes were taken.

The lawsuit also cites the $91 million developmental agreements the developers of both Project Cardinal and Project Steel are sending to the city. The plaintiffs argue the “package was expressly conditioned on full approval of both projects,” meaning a financial interdependence likely prevented the rezoning for Project Steel being “considered on its individual merits.”

The city has not released a public statement addressing the lawsuit.