Trustees of the Village of Hampton Hills spent much of the meeting debating competing land‑use visions for the village, focusing on water and sewer availability, the Route 47 corridor and possible overlay rules to manage stormwater and growth. Some trustees and participants argued the comprehensive plan should state that the village neither owns nor intends to build a public water or sewer utility, while others said explicitly limiting infrastructure could hand development opportunities to neighboring municipalities with utilities.

The discussion centered on two competing approaches: adopt language that effectively preserves farmland and low‑density uses by stating limits on public utilities, or provide a more explicit vision for what types of development would be acceptable if landowners sell and development occurs. Trustees and participants raised the risk that if the village simply says it will not provide sewer and water, a neighboring municipality or developer with utility access could annex or develop those parcels at higher density.

Trustees and staff also discussed the Illinois Department of Transportation’s (IDOT) corridor plans for Route 47 and how the village’s plan should respond. One participant said IDOT’s corridor plans “profoundly impact this community” and urged the comp plan to reflect that reality rather than rely on water‑and‑sewer limitations to control development.

As an alternative regulatory tool, staff and trustees discussed adding a groundwater recharge‑zone overlay or similar engineering requirements to the comp plan. A staff speaker said they could draft an overlay requiring development to include engineered injection wells, permeable pavement or other measures so stormwater would percolate rather than run off, and that the village’s consultant (Jim Brown) and an engineering firm (HR Green) could help prepare details if trustees direct staff to do so. That change was presented as a way to make development more site‑sensitive without asserting a blanket prohibition on higher‑density uses.

Trustees also discussed conservation‑design approaches for a proposed project south of Route 38, describing an option that would preserve roughly 400 acres of open space inside a larger development footprint and concentrate housing on smaller portions of the site. Participants said prior planning materials (including a 2012 plan cited during the meeting) and a longtime community preference for preserving farmland informed the debate.

Discussion included several tradeoffs: keeping low‑density, agricultural preservation as the default versus offering clearer guidance for allowable lower‑impact development (for example, larger lot sizes or clustered housing). Trustees said they want the comp plan to provide a clearer “vision” to use in negotiations with landowners and neighboring jurisdictions, rather than leaving the village without tools to shape future proposals.

The board did not adopt formal policy changes during the discussion. A staff member said they could prepare draft language for a recharge overlay and return it quickly if trustees indicate consensus to add it. No recorded motion or vote was taken on changing the comp plan at this meeting.

The agenda also included references to farmland preservation programs in nearby jurisdictions and to Canton Township’s open‑space acquisitions; participants praised prior volunteer efforts that had conserved area farmland and parks.

Trustees agreed there should be additional public engagement—a workshop or roundtable—to test community preferences on density, the Route 47 corridor vision and the recharge‑zone idea before adopting final comp plan language. One trustee suggested a public workshop would clarify whether residents prefer 1‑acre estate lots, 2.5‑acre country houses, or some form of limited clustered development.

Background: speakers repeatedly framed the issue around private landowners’ right to sell and the village’s limited ability to provide utilities. Participants noted examples where municipalities with water and sewer connections drew development away from unserved areas; they also observed that some forms of development (such as large warehouses) can be built with wells and limited sewer demand and therefore would not be stopped solely by absence of public utilities.

Next steps identified by trustees and staff included drafting overlay language (groundwater recharge or stormwater injection requirements) and scheduling additional public engagement on the comp plan. No ordinance or formal adoption was recorded at the meeting.