Just weeks before construction would have begun, Glen Ellyn village leaders have decided to go back to square one on a controversial Ackerman Park construction project.

The Monday, June 9 decision comes after months of opposition from residents, who decried the storm-water management project because it would clear about 340 trees in the park. Village officials now will head back to the drawing board and reconsider how to deal with storm-water runoff in the Five Corners area.

Village President Vicky Hase said planners will look at alternative sites, taking into account cost, tree loss and other factors. The emphasis still will be water detention, Five Corners development and tree preservation, she said.

“This will be done so that the Village Board can make an honest appraisal of what’s best in the long-term interest of the village,” she said.

Hase made the announcement before trustees rejected a round of contract bids for the construction — a move rarely made, Hase said.

Just two weeks ago the village and the Glen Ellyn Park District were set to go ahead with the joint plan to build two soccer fields in Ackerman Park, one of them doubling as a dry-bottom detention pond.

But last week the Park District, facing steady opposition from almost 100 residents, backed away from the soccer fields. At the same time, Park Board members left the door open for the village to build the detention pond.

That decision proved to be the linchpin in the Ackerman Park project. Village leaders had said previously that if the Park District wavered, the village would reconsider as well.

After the Park District’s vote Bill Taylor, president of the Park District Board of Commissioners, admitted that he had gone back and forth on his position several times.

Ultimately, he decided to drop his support in light of the passion and size of the group of residents opposing the plan. An online petition attracted more than 1,500 endorsements, and newspaper letters to the editor overwhelmingly opposed the project.

“I never heard from anybody who said, ‘Go ahead and do this. This is a great idea,’” he said. “And I never saw a letter to an editor (saying), ‘This is good. It should be done.’ … There were so many people against it and so few people for it. It really made the decision kind of simple.”