Campton Hills trustees schedule Sept. 9 session to refine comprehensive plan after debate over growth labels

Trustees in Campton Hills removed the village’s draft comprehensive plan from the table and agreed to continue work at a special meeting Sept. 9, aiming to resolve outstanding map corrections and contested language about future growth areas.

The board took procedural action to bring Ordinance 25‑26 (the draft comprehensive plan) back for discussion; Janet moved to remove the item from the table and Tree seconded. Staff said Jim would prepare materials and an engineering-style timeline to show when interdependent steps would occur so the board could make informed choices at the special meeting.

Staff reported two specific updates: the open-space map requires minor parcel corrections, and the demographic section will be revised to include the new CMAC community snapshot based on the American Community Survey five‑year estimates (2019–2023). Staff said the publication will be inserted as Appendix A and dated August 2024; board members discussed whether a targeted Census or neighborhood count could capture recent growth (one speaker estimated roughly +120 people), but staff cautioned such updates carry costs that must be evaluated against potential fiscal benefits.

The substantive policy debate centered on whether the plan should identify specific future development areas. One trustee praised the plan’s historical review and strategic steps but said the draft emphasized areas near established centers and did not give a clear vision for north, west and other frontier areas where gradual change is likely. Planning staff recalled that a previous planning and zoning committee had opted not to label specific development areas to avoid creating a 'green‑light' effect for developers; several trustees expressed interest in crafting a forward-looking vision that protects farm and open‑space values while allowing farmers and landowners predictable options.

Trustees asked staff to compile written comments (Janet’s comments were cited repeatedly) and circulate them before the Sept. 9 meeting. Staff agreed to prepare bullet points and, if agreed by the board, to propose edits to sections of the draft ahead of the special session. The board also noted the Sept. 9 agenda will include consideration of accepting the low qualified bidder for road work from an earlier meeting.

The board did not adopt the plan at this meeting; the next procedural step is the special Sept. 9 session, when trustees expect to review staff revisions and consider formal votes on outstanding items.