McLean County residents and planners spar over draft regional land use map

Several McLean County residents pressed the Land Use and Transportation Committee on Tuesday to delay adoption of a draft strategic land use plan they say mislabels private property and lacks adequate rural outreach.

The public comments — and subsequent questions from county board members — focused on how the McLean County Regional Planning Commission produced a future land use map that included extensive areas the commission labeled for industrial or residential development. “Our voices and votes are too frequently lost to the wants of the City of Bloomington and Town of Normal,” one public commenter said during the meeting.

The plan’s lead presenter, Anthony Baumann, community planner for the McLean County Regional Planning Commission (MCRPC), told the committee the document is meant as a guiding vision and not a zoning change. “This plan does not change or regulate zoning,” Baumann said, adding the map is intended to provide updated spatial information for local governments and will be incorporated into future comprehensive-plan updates.

Why it matters: Residents said the map labels private farmland for future residential or industrial use without sufficient local notice or consultation, particularly in unincorporated and rural areas. The committee’s role, under county code chapter 20, includes serving as a liaison between the full county board and the Regional Planning Commission; several board members said they expect a fuller outreach process before any formal adoption.

Key concerns raised included a proposal that would expand Shirley from roughly 40 acres to an additional 330 acres of future residential development, a claimed 825% increase; the designation of a 1,456-acre Southeast Bloomington Industrial and Employment Center; and the placement of proposed major roads, including an “East Side Corridor” that speakers said has been rejected repeatedly in the past decade. One commenter referenced federal work under the Clean Water Act, saying that a 2018 EPA and City of Bloomington project invested $1,770,000 in stream restoration designed to handle runoff from a 480-acre subdivision and that the plan’s additional adjacent residential acreage could overwhelm that restoration.

Committee discussion and next steps: Members pressed MCRPC staff on process and outreach. Member Duffy asked whether township officials or elected municipal leaders were consulted; Baumann said the first draft relied on staff input from the city, town and county but that township supervisors and other rural stakeholders had not been directly consulted during map production. Baumann outlined planned next steps: extend public engagement beyond the first comment period, meet with the McLean County Farm Bureau and the Rural Mayors Association, host multiple in-person public meetings in August (locations and dates to be posted), offer direct meetings with township supervisors and road commissioners, and publish an updated draft incorporating stakeholder feedback.

Baumann also said the commission has published an interactive map viewer on its website that allows the public to look up parcel pin numbers and see existing and proposed land-use layers; he said the map is intended to be expanded and clarified in a subsequent draft. Board members asked that staff emphasize that the July comment deadline represents the end of an initial round and not the end of the engagement process.

What was not decided: The committee did not vote to adopt the strategic land use plan or to send it to the full county board for adoption. Baumann said adoption by the county, city and town would occur through each jurisdiction’s normal processes; he did not present or request a formal adoption vote at the meeting.

Context and constraints: Baumann said the strategic land use plan was produced in part because existing land-use maps predate major local changes such as new industrial employers and the post‑COVID housing shortage. He described the document’s intended scope as a map-focused update; detailed goals and regulatory changes are expected to remain the responsibility of each local government’s comprehensive-plan updates. He also said that the plan’s “natural resources” designation combines USGS forest layers, parks, golf courses and flood-hazard zones, and is intended as an environmentally protective category rather than an invitation to public recreational use of private land. Baumann said consultation with agencies such as the EPA would typically occur during the project- or zoning-level review phase rather than in a countywide draft map.

Community reaction and next meeting: Multiple speakers told the committee that many rural residents had not seen the draft; one speaker said she had visited neighbors and found only one who knew about the plan. Committee members asked staff to ensure that subsequent outreach includes paper and in-person options for residents who lack internet access and to provide clearer map layers (lot lines, roads) in the next public draft to help landowners find and review their parcels.

The committee did not set an adoption timeline; members said they will revisit the plan at a future meeting after staff returns with an updated outreach schedule and a revised draft.