Oswego begins comprehensive-plan update as commissioners focus on downtown, riverfront and infrastructure

Consultants from the Lakota Group presented the kickoff of an update to Oswego's comprehensive plan and opened a broad discussion about the village's assets and challenges, with commissioners focusing on downtown walkability, the Fox River and buried infrastructure that could limit future commercial development.

"We're here to just really kick things off with you all," Lakota consultant Saraj Asvahani told the Planning & Zoning Commission as he described a three-phase process the team will use: Phase 1 (assessments and engagement, producing a "State of Oswego" report), Phase 2 (vision and goals) and Phase 3 (actions, partners and funding). The consultants said the project team includes SB Friedman (market analysis), Kimley Horn (transportation and stormwater) and SiteLine Planning (zoning/UDO review), and that outreach already includes stakeholder interviews, a steering committee and planned pop-up events such as the village's Christmas Walk.

Commissioners and long-time residents repeatedly described Oswego's downtown as a defining community asset but said it is constrained by high-volume traffic on U.S. Route 34, which runs through the central business district. "Route 34 goes right through the center of our downtown, which really creates a lot of challenges," one commissioner said, describing the difficulty of building wider sidewalks, improving pedestrian crossings or creating a continuous riverfront promenade while a multi-lane state highway bisects Main Street. Several participants urged exploring a bypass or re-routing strategies; consultants said transportation analysis will be part of the process but acknowledged any change would require coordination with county and state agencies.

Speakers also raised the Fox River and the string of river islands as potential tourism and recreation assets that the village has not yet been able to capitalize on. Ownership of islands and riverfront parcels is mixed (private owners, county forest preserve and other public entities), which speakers said limits the village's ability to craft a cohesive riverfront plan. One longtime attendee called the islands "covered with garbage and cars" and said cleanup and coordinated ownership would be costly and politically sensitive.

Commissioners criticized recent development patterns that have emphasized residential subdivisions and strip commercial along Route 34 rather than mixed-use anchors near downtown. Several speakers called past projects (named in the meeting as Hudson Crossing and others) missed opportunities to build a walkable, year-round downtown anchor. "We built a populous to feed the engine of our downtown, which is almost nonexistent," one commissioner said, arguing the village repeatedly approved residential development without securing downtown-serving commercial anchors.

Infrastructure constraints came up repeatedly. Jennifer Hughes, a village trustee and former public works director, and other speakers noted that subsurface utilities and buried electrical conduits limit capacity for heavier commercial or data-center users; consultants and staff said they will include utility and capacity analysis in the existing-conditions assessment. The meeting also included discussion of school-district finances and tax impacts of residential-heavy growth; a commissioner noted recent large bond measures and warned of longer-term fiscal stress if the village's tax base remains concentrated in new housing.

Consultants emphasized that the plan is a "community vision" and not a zoning ordinance: community input will inform preferred development concepts that could later lead to zoning revisions. The project website (OswegoCompPlan.com), an online survey and in-person pop-ups were promoted as the next opportunities for residents to provide input. The consultants said they will prepare an existing-conditions report early in the next calendar year and return with findings and comparable-community case studies.

The meeting opened with a routine approval of minutes and concluded with no public forum speakers. The commission set follow-up engagement and noted the next commission meeting date.