Campton Hills is officially annexing land currently part of an unincorporated community in Kane County into the village, as a local developer plans to build up to 900 housing units on the property.
Following months of discussion, and despite some opposition at a public hearing, the village board voted at a special meeting on Sept. 4 to annex the land the residential development would be built on into the village, and to approve an annexation agreement between the village, the property’s current owner and Geneva-based developer Shodeen Group.
This move represents the next step in the project eventually coming to fruition, but it’s not the last: the project still needs to go through the village’s zoning approval process, and Campton Hills is in the process of considering whether to create a tax increment financing, or TIF, district in the area they’ve annexed into the village.
The project area is 962 acres generally bounded by Route 38 to the north, Keslinger Road to the south, Harley Road to the west and Brundige Road to the east, according to past reporting.
Developing this area in the rural unincorporated community of La Fox has been many years in the making. Since the early 2000s, several developers have tried and failed to turn it into a residential development.
But this most recent plan by developer Shodeen proposes a less dense housing plan than previous projects, according to past reporting, and has gotten the support of local open space organizations that previously opposed the area’s development.
Shodeen’s plan includes 900 housing units and leaves significant portions of the land as open space, Shodeen President David Patzelt has said. The project is not set to include apartment-style units, nor commercial development, according to past reporting.
The public hearing held on Sept. 4 was originally set for June, but was delayed to give the village board more time to discuss and allow the village to continue working on the annexation agreement, Campton Hills Village Administrator Mark Rooney previously said, particularly regarding the agreement’s requirement that the developer sell the open space to entities like a forest preserve district or other land conservancy organizations. Per the agreement, roughly 440 acres of the land are to remain open space.
However, while the project has mostly been viewed positively by village officials and open space organizations, the proposed project has generated some criticism over its possible impact on local entities like the school district and public library district.
One of the major concerns was between the developer and Geneva School District 304, the school district for the project’s development area.
In August, after months of negotiating, Geneva 304’s school board voted to approve a financial agreement with Shodeen, according to past reporting. That agreement requires the developer to pay the district roughly $6.1 million upfront, with adjustments for the Consumer Price Index over the course of construction. And, if the village moves to establish a TIF district in the area, the agreement requires Shodeen to use tax increment generated by the TIF to pay the district the full cost of tuition for every student enrolled in the district that resides in the newly-developed area for each year the TIF exists. Shodeen is in support of the terms of the agreement, Patzelt previously said.
A TIF district is a sort of economic development incentive in which the value of a property is essentially frozen, and the extra or “increment” taxes created by developing the property go into a special fund used to pay for costs related to improving the area.
Though the village has not yet decided whether it will be creating a TIF district in the area, the annexation agreement approved by the board notes that a TIF district is a possibility.
The village board recently hired consulting firm SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC. to study whether the area is eligible for a TIF district. The TIF increment money could potentially be used by the developer to pay for water and sewer infrastructure upgrades intended to increase capacity in the area.
Rooney has said that the village’s final decision on whether to create a TIF district would most likely happen after the zoning process and after the developer closes on the sale of the land.
At the village’s public hearing on Sept. 4, numerous residents and individuals from entities like the Geneva Public Library District and Mill Creek Water Reclamation District — who could be providing water and sanitary services, per the annexation agreement — voiced concerns, and a few expressed support.
The Mill Creek Water Reclamation District, for example, has asserted that the annexation agreement was not formally presented to them, according to a letter posted to its website and a representative from the district who spoke at the hearing. In the letter, the district asserted that it doesn’t have the water or sewer capacity to service the area, nor the money needed to pay for infrastructure upgrades.
Rooney said the village intends to let the developer start discussions with the water reclamation district, and that the village wouldn’t be involved until it is determined that the area’s eligible for a TIF district. He acknowledged that connecting the development to water and sewer would be “very difficult” without a TIF district because the developer would be paying for infrastructure upgrades out-of-pocket.
Patzelt told The Beacon-News on Tuesday that Shodeen “understands that with any development there are significant costs associated with the expansion of the ecologically correct system operated” by the water reclamation district, but said it remains “confident that Shodeen and the district can work together collaboratively to obtain sources of funding.”
The Geneva Public Library District has also expressed concerns about the effects of the development.
At the public hearing, Geneva Public Library District President Mark Adams said the library district is in “strong opposition” to the plan as it stands now. Library Director Christine Lazaris said the district asked the developer for an impact fee to account for an increase in residents to the area from the development.
“Please hold the developer accountable,” Lazaris said. She suggested the village either postpone the vote on the annexation agreement to allow for more discussion, or amend the existing agreement.
The Geneva Park District also came up at the public hearing as an entity that may be affected by the proposed development.
The park district was initially in negotiations with the developer, per a letter sent to the village board and provided to The Beacon-News by Park District Executive Director Nicole Vickers. The letter says the park district requested additional financial support should a TIF district be created, or for the developer to “voluntarily disconnect” from the park district if a TIF district was instituted. Per the letter, those requests were denied.
Patzelt and the park district said they opted not to pursue a developer donation agreement over the TIF matter. In its letter, the park district said it is “not opposed to the annexation or the development itself” and that it remains “open to future collaboration should conditions change.”
And Patzelt reiterated on Tuesday that a TIF district is still a possible tool for financing the water and sewer infrastructure upgrades.
For the village’s part, Rooney said on Tuesday that there is “no need for an impact fee” for the park district or library district at this point, unless a TIF district is created. In that case, he said, the village intends to negotiate with the involved entities about the length and terms of the TIF district, and about possible upfront impact money.
The development did receive some support from speakers at last week’s public hearing, however.
Patsy Smith, who was part of Campton Hills’ initial push to incorporate nearly two decades ago, emphasized that this project is the “least dense subdivision proposed in the last 20-plus years, with the most designated open space.”
Smith argued that, should the village not OK the project, the developer will likely turn to a new municipality — who may not share Campton Hills’ priorities for the area.
“All of us who moved to Campton Hills desire to be the last person that moves here,” Smith said during the public hearing. “But that’s just not realistic.”
And Bill Zander, the treasurer of the La Fox Civic Association, suggested that the less-dense proposal reduces the impact a development would have on things like traffic and the school district.
Ultimately, despite the concerns voiced at the meeting and two failed motions to table the votes to a later date, both the annexation agreement and the annexation of the property into the village were approved at last week’s special meeting. All of the village trustees present except Trustee Terese Hopfensperger, who called the process for approval “extremely rushed,” voted in favor, with Village President Barbara Wojnicki voting for the annexation agreement because the motion required a supermajority.
For Shodeen’s part, Patzelt said it is “pleased with the annexation approval steps,” and that the developer is “committed to working with all those involved to ensure the vision becomes reality.”
The project’s next step, according to Rooney, would be for the developer to submit a zoning application to the village seeking a Planned Unit Development, or PUD, zoning designation.
mmorrow@chicagotribune.com
