A lawsuit has been filed against the village of Sugar Grove by a Kane County resident over its creation of a tax increment financing, or TIF, district, for the controversial Crown Community Development project at Interstate 88 and Route 47 that recently began construction.
Called The Grove, the project is a planned 760-acre mixed-use development, commonly referred to as the Crown development in reference to its developer, Naperville-based Crown Community Development, according to past reporting. It’s set to have neighborhoods, mixed-use commercial and residential areas, a walkable town center and a business park that could hold warehouses and data centers.
The development, however, has faced significant public opposition, both before its approval and since. One stream of criticism has focused on the proposed business park.
While the mainly residential portion of the development is facing Sugar Grove, where the village already has neighborhoods, the business park portion is proposed for the other side of I-88, further away from the village boundary, according to past reporting. Mixed-use areas that would allow for retail, office, civic or residential development are set to be across the street from a single-family neighborhood in Blackberry Township, according to proposed site plans.
That’s led to some criticism from Blackberry Township residents, including Dale Essling, the plaintiff in the most recent lawsuit.
The suit against Sugar Grove was filed on Sept. 9 with the 16th Judicial Circuit Court by Essling, who says in the suit he lives less than 250 feet from the site of the proposed development. Essling is representing himself in the lawsuit.
In a statement provided to The Beacon-News on Thursday, the village of Sugar Grove said it “received a plaintiff/petitioner filed motion (pro se) via email” on Wednesday, and that it has been forwarded to its attorneys for review. The village said it is “not considered best practice for most municipalities” to comment further on pending litigation, but said it “will allow the judicial system to run its course.”
Essling’s lawsuit primarily concerns the village’s annexation of the development area and the establishment of a tax increment financing, or TIF, district for the project area, which has been another major point of contention for the development.
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.
When the Sugar Grove Village Board approved the project last September, it also OK’d the creation of a TIF district for the area.
This is also not the only lawsuit the village is facing over the TIF district. In June, Kaneland School District 302 moved to sue the village over the TIF district, arguing that it will cause the school district to lose out on the incremental property taxes for the area being redeveloped.
Essling’s lawsuit questions the validity of the Sugar Grove TIF consultant’s opinion that the area would be eligible for a TIF district on the basis of the property contributing to downstream flooding, meaning the land can be considered “blighted.” The lawsuit also questions whether the property would remain “blighted” if a TIF district was not created, sometimes called a “but-for” test, and criticizes aspects of the annexation for the project.
“This property up here, the 760 acres that Crown has, is not an eyesore,” Essling said on Thursday. “It doesn’t pose a problem to the public whatsoever.”
Essling, who has long been critical of the project, also pointed to the possibility of the TIF district leading to local taxing bodies, faced with increasing expenses, levying higher property taxes on residents in the absence of the increment funding they would get without a TIF district.
As a Blackberry Township resident, Essling also referred to the site plan and his community’s possible proximity to warehouses and a fueling station, saying they “didn’t even get a voice in this.”
“We’re not against development,” Essling said. “We’re against having warehouses shoved down our throat. … And if the one way to stop this would be to … get rid of their TIF, then we’ll start there.”
The case is due in court in January, though Essling said he has moved for an injunction to stop work on the project, and there is a motion call set for next week, according to Kane County court records. Construction recently began on what is set to be the development’s first residential neighborhood.
mmorrow@chicagotribune.com
