The Sugar Grove Village Board voted on Tuesday to approve a 760-acre mixed-use development, along with an agreement to annex the property into the village and give the developer financial incentives, despite significant public opposition.
The project known as The Grove, which was proposed by land owner and developer Crown Community Development, will sit on what is currently mostly farmland surrounding the Interstate 88 and Route 47 interchange in what was previously unincorporated Kane County.
The land is set to one day hold neighborhoods, mixed-use commercial and residential areas, a walkable town center and a business park that could hold warehouses and data centers, Crown representatives have said.
The project was approved across eight votes, each on a different aspect of the development. Those votes passed either 5-2 or 4-2, depending on whether Village President Jennifer Konen was voting on the item or not.
Other than Konen, the trustees voting in favor of the project were Matthew Bonnie, Sean Herron, Michael Schomas and James White. Trustees Heidi Lendi and Sean Michels voted against the project and repeatedly spoke against it throughout the board’s discussion at Tuesday’s meeting and others.
Konen said after the meeting that the project is a balanced plan between residential, commercial and industrial development, which will provide long-term benefits to the area, particularly because of the revenue it will generate for local governments and other taxing bodies.
“The Village Board is here to represent the entire community as a whole,” she said. “Our responsibility is to the entire community.”
The two trustees opposed to the project disagreed that it would be beneficial to the community and said the financial incentives offered to Crown Community Development would actually divert tax dollars away from those local governments and other taxing bodies, such as the school district.
They also disagreed with other trustees and a report by economic development consulting firm SB Friedman that the area was even eligible for the financial incentive tool, known as a tax increment financing, or TIF, district.
In a comment mid-way through the eight votes needed to approve the project in full, Lendi said she wanted development and wanted to diversify the village’s tax base, but that the “devil’s in the details.” The agreements give up too much power to Crown Community Development, she said.
“We’re not desperate. Don’t act like we’re desperate,” Lendi said.
Those who spoke during the meeting’s main public comment period, which took place before the Village Board’s discussion and vote, had similar concerns to Lendi and Michels about the TIF district. The nearly 30 speakers also voiced other concerns, such as the development’s impact on the area’s rural character, traffic, public health and the environment.
Speakers also pointed to the significant public opposition as a reason the Village Board should have voted against the project. An online petition opposing the project gathered over 2,000 signatures since it was created on Aug. 28.
“Your community is asking why their voices and concerns are being ignored,” Carolyn Anderson, a lead organizer against the development, said during public comment. “We oppose the destruction of our community and the future industrial development that will spread like a prairie fire through our farmland.”
Area residents have been showing up to meetings in opposition to the project since the first was held in May.
That meeting was a Joint Review Board of different taxing bodies that would be impacted by the TIF district. The board did not reach an agreement on whether or not to recommend the district’s approval, with most representatives choosing not to vote one way or the other.
Since then, Sugar Grove has held a public hearing on the TIF district, a Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals meeting that lasted around 12 hours over several days and a Village Board meeting purely to discuss the proposed development as a whole for the first time, which took three days to complete and lasted nearly 18 total hours.
According to presentations given at those meetings and plans included with the project’s application to the village, roughly 400 acres of the 760-acre development area will be dedicated to residential development.
The primarily residential area, which is planned to be mostly neighborhoods but also has roughly 45 acres of mixed-use development and a walkable town center, will be located south of I-88 and closest to the existing Sugar Grove boundary line.
The town center is set to include a village green, retail and restaurant development, townhouses and land for a new village hall. A village park is also planned for the area and would include pickleball courts, “playscapes,” a splash pad, food truck areas, a beer garden and a farmers market, plans show.
In total, the project could potentially have up to 1,500 residential units in a combination of single-family houses, townhomes, duplexes and multi-family homes, according to a website dedicated to the project.
A 244-acre business park called Grove Park is planned for north of I-88. That area could support a number of land uses, including health care, business suites, retail, restaurants, multi-family housing, distribution, data centers and other services, Crown representatives have said.
The area north of I-88 would also include roughly 78 acres of mixed-use development, which would allow for commercial, retail, office or residential construction, plans show.
The mixed-use and business park areas north of I-88 are near existing homes, and many of the people living in these homes have come to meetings to oppose the project. These residents, who live outside of Sugar Grove boundaries even with the newly-approved annexation, have said they feel their concerns are not being listened to because they are not Sugar Grove residents.
Through discussions with the Village Board, Crown Community Development made a number of concessions throughout the development, but particularly around the business park and nearby mixed-use areas. Some of the most significant changes were restrictions on heavy industrial uses and new standards to ensure that a planned “fueling station” does not end up being a 24/7 truck stop.
Crown Community Development is a land developer, not a building company, so it will generally be doing the work of preparing the land for development, such as through infrastructure construction and grading, but will then be selling the land to builders, the company’s representatives have previously said.
However, a number of standards written by Crown Community Development are included in the special zoning standards for the development that were approved by the Village Board on Tuesday. Those standards will need to be followed by all future owners of the land unless the village agrees to rezone the land in the future.
Crown will be fully developing the proposed parks and the structures within them, company representatives have said.
Within all of the land uses, the development is planned to include 200 acres of open green space that would include parks, five miles of interconnected trails and naturalized areas that preserve 70 acres of mature tree groves in the area, according to presentations that have been given by company representatives.
Those parks and other open spaces would be offered to the village of Sugar Grove, the Sugar Grove Park District and the Kane County Forest Preserve District, agreements approved on Tuesday say. If any of the land is turned down, it would go to a homeowners association for maintenance and upkeep.
To approve the project as a whole, the Village Board approved four different parts: an agreement to annex the 760-acre property into the village of Sugar Grove, a subdivision agreement to separate the property into different development areas, a Planned Development District zoning designation for the subdivided areas and a $340 million TIF district to incentivize the development, along with a redevelopment agreement with Crown Community Development for how the company will get paid back using TIF-generated funds.
A TIF district is allowed under state law to encourage the development of areas where development would otherwise not be financially viable. The report by SB Friedman said that Crown would be developing the property at a loss if not for the TIF, and even with it, the company would see less than a 10% return on its investments.
When growth takes place in a TIF district, the extra taxes that come from that growth are placed into a special fund instead of being distributed among all taxing bodies during the district’s duration. The money in that special fund can then be used by a local government to pay costs associated with the development within the TIF district, such as creating or improving public infrastructure.
While some communities sell bonds to improve a TIF district, banking on the funds generated within the TIF to pay off those bonds, Sugar Grove is taking a different approach.
Crown Community Development will be funding its own infrastructure construction at the site, and if the land does develop because of that construction, then funds generated by the TIF will go to pay Crown back roughly $109 million for eligible infrastructure and site work plus interest.
However, Crown must meet certain development benchmarks before the company is paid back with TIF-generated funds. Plus, if the TIF district does not generate enough within its 23-year lifetime to pay Crown back for the eligible work it completed, then the village is not on the hook to pay the company back.
The TIF agreement also sets aside 10% of the funds generated as “surplus,” which allows it to be distributed among the taxing bodies that would otherwise be missing out on any new tax revenue from the project for the life of the TIF district.
According to village staff’s calculations, that would mean a combined $37 million to all local taxing bodies throughout the TIF district’s 23-year lifespan, assuming the project develops as expected.
Village officials have said the Kaneland School District would get the majority of those funds in addition to funds paid out of the TIF district to cover the cost of any students living within the TIF district, along with other fees outlined in various agreements.
The development is also expected to bring in other types of revenue to the village, such as sales tax, and create roughly 4,600 permanent jobs, Crown representatives have previously said.
Speakers at various meetings, including the one on Tuesday, said they were skeptical of Crown Community Development’s promises and plans.
Some speakers said they were not against development in general, but simply against the current plan, mainly because of the business park area and its impact on traffic and the environment, particularly because of air pollution from trucks and potential groundwater contamination.
Others spoke against the TIF district, echoing concerns from Trustees Lendi and Michels. Speakers said the TIF would take away funds needed to support services that would need to be expanded because of development within the district.
These local governments or other taxing bodies like school or fire districts will need to raise taxes on existing residents to pay for services within the TIF district, speakers said.
The area’s eligibility for TIF district designation under state law was also disputed by speakers, who said that eligibility was determined without proof. Some cited court rulings to back up their points.
The development plan itself does not meet the character of the area, according to some public speakers. They said people moved to the area for this character, which will be harmed because of the development.
Others questioned why the Village Board wasn’t pushing back harder against Crown’s requests, and echoed Lendi’s comments saying that the village was giving up too much to the company without any benefit.
Another public comment period was held after the vote, and 10 people spoke during this time, expressing their anger, sadness or disappointment in the board’s decision. Some thanked the trustees who voted and spoke against the development.
“You are to listen to the community and do what your constituents want you to do, not to do what you want to do with our community,” Sugar Grove resident Carrie Guerra told trustees during that public comment period. “You have destroyed our community.”
rsmith@chicagotribune.com
