Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Exchange topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Village discusses land‑exchange proposal with Blackstone Golf Course owner; Park & Rec questions and public raise costs and timing concerns
Summary
Village leaders and the owner of Blackstone Golf Course discussed a proposed land exchange on March 10 that would transfer most of the golf course to the village in exchange for village parcels on Main Street; commissioners and Park & Rec raised questions about wetlands, replacement costs and valuation.
Village staff and the administrator presented a land‑exchange proposal from the Highmark Group, owner of Blackstone Golf Course, at the March 10 Plan Commission meeting so commissioners could ask questions and give feedback before any negotiation.
Administrator Craiglow described the concept: Highmark proposed transferring most of the golf course to the Village and keeping a southeast corner parcel for separate residential development; in exchange the developer would receive village parcels along Main Street that include the former recycling/yard‑waste site and a portion of Hauptstrasse Park that currently contains pickleball courts and a skateboard area. Craiglow said the village board asked staff to consult both Park & Rec and the Plan Commission before pursuing negotiations.
Staff and Park & Rec discussed potential recreational uses for the floodplain and wetland areas, noting that parks can be compatible with floodplain conditions. Trustee Baum presented a conceptual, pro‑bono sketch showing higher‑ground areas that could support shelters, playgrounds or picnic areas, while lower, floodplain areas could accommodate trails, a disc‑golf course or river access for kayaking and fishing. Park & Rec members asked that any negotiation include replacement of the pickleball courts and skate amenities and that the village seek compensation or developer contribution to cover those costs.
Several residents and commissioners raised process and cost questions. Commissioners asked for appraisal comparisons rather than an initial “sticker‑price” exchange; staff said the proposal was an opening offer and that appraisals and negotiations would be next steps if the board desires to proceed. Questions included whether wetlands and state permits would affect developability, how impact fees and TID tools might be used, and whether two concurrent redevelopment projects in the village could compete for tenants or financing.
Plan Commission members observed that the proposal is at an early stage. Trustee Baum urged first answering whether the board wants to pursue a trade before getting into valuation and replacement‑cost detail. Park & Rec asked staff to include estimates for master planning and replacement amenities in any negotiation, and staff said those cost items would be part of future discussions if the Village Board directs staff to proceed.
No zoning or land‑use decision was made. Administrator Craiglow and staff will relay Plan Commission feedback to the Village Board; any further steps (appraisals, negotiations, master planning for park amenities, or developer submissions) would require separate village‑board direction and additional public review.
