Campton Hills’ corporate authorities on Nov. 17 reviewed a Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation to accept a preliminary planned‑unit development (PUD) for a large LaFox area project that the packet describes as roughly 960 acres with a proposed buildout of about 900 housing units and more than 440 acres of preserved open space.

The board did not vote on an ordinance. Instead trustees discussed roughly 20 PCC conditions attached to the preliminary approval recommendation — including whether roads through the subdivision should be 28 or 30 feet back‑to‑back, how many streetlights to allow under the village’s dark‑sky policy, phasing timelines for a multi‑decade buildout, and where to stub water and sewer mains so nearby historic LaFox residents can tie in later.

Why it matters: The project would cluster new housing to preserve open space and the Mill Creek riparian corridor, and could require substantial infrastructure work — including an estimated $25 million expansion at the Mill Creek Water Reclamation District cited on the record. Trustees emphasized the choices made now could affect neighborhood character, long‑term maintenance costs and whether nearby older parcels can reasonably connect to municipal sewer and water in the future.

Board discussion and staff explanation
Village staff, including the village attorney and planning staff, told trustees the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended approval of the preliminary PUD with conditions and that a formal preliminary PUD ordinance would mirror the PCC’s findings of fact. Staff said the developer would have a statutory window (two years) to submit a final PUD application but staff and trustees acknowledged the project will be built in phases over many years and that phasing language must reflect that multi‑decade reality.

On roadway widths and lighting, trustees and staff revisited PCC debate: the village code nominally calls for 30‑foot back‑to‑back pavement on many streets, while the developer proposed 28 feet across much of the subdivision. Proponents of the narrower width said 28 feet encourages slower driving speeds and better fits the village’s semi‑rural character; public safety and engineering voices cautioned that certain collector or entrance segments would benefit from wider pavement and from turn/deceleration lanes. Trustee Boatner said, "28 feet seems plenty wide to me," while village engineering staff warned that some connector segments should remain wider to handle peak flows and turning lanes.

Street lighting numbers drew similar trade‑offs. The village’s dark‑sky ordinance limits unnecessary lighting; planners noted a dark‑sky‑compliant neighborhood with five to six intersection lights would scale up across the LaFox site into the low twenties of fixtures, while the developer had proposed far fewer. The PCC recommendation landed near 15–18 fixtures (rising to 18 if a planned fire station is built); staff presented 20–22 as a potential compromise to better balance safety and dark‑sky goals.

Utilities and TIF money
Trustees spent substantial time on water and sewer planning for the existing historic LaFox properties adjacent to the development. Staff and developer representatives described options to "stub" laterals or to place valve vaults at intersections near the annexation/TIF boundary so nearby homeowners could later tie in, rather than extending and charging the immediate cost to each older parcel now. Several trustees said using TIF funds to extend mains or reserve capacity should be a priority to reduce the expense for historic residents who might otherwise face costly septic repairs or new wells if their systems fail.

Developer and staff cautioned that expanded capacity at the Mill Creek Water Reclamation District — discussed on the record as a roughly $25 million project — and municipal agreements would shape what hookups are possible and when. Staff emphasized capacity and recapture arrangements are separate policy questions that will need to be resolved as part of any redevelopment agreement if a TIF is pursued.

Public comment and specific claims
Paul Mayer, a public commenter, urged the board to be skeptical of TIFs, calling them "corporate welfare" and citing county‑level TIF figures by way of example. His remarks were a public comment, not an evidentiary finding; no formal decision on TIF financing was taken at the meeting.

Formal actions
The only formal action recorded on Nov. 17 was a motion to permit Trustee Frank Benetti to participate remotely due to a work conflict; the motion carried by roll call. The board otherwise directed staff to refine the PUD conditions and return with an ordinance and final engineering follow‑up when the technical reviews and the TIF eligibility study are complete.

What’s next
Staff will refine the preliminary PUD ordinance language to address phasing, collector roadway widths and locations for utility stubs tied to the annexation/TIF boundary. The village’s retained TIF consultant will complete an eligibility study; if the property is deemed eligible and the developer requests it, the village would then review a redevelopment agreement alongside final engineering and the final PUD application. The board did not set a formal ordinance vote date during the Nov. 17 meeting.

Votes at a glance
- Motion to allow Trustee Frank Benetti to participate remotely: moved by Ken; second by Janet (recorded in the minutes as "Janet Berson"). Roll call recorded ayes and the motion carried.

(Reporting note: the transcript consistently used the name "Hampton Hills"; the village’s official name is Campton Hills, which is used here to reflect the governing body on the public record.)