Oswego planning commission rejects Route 31 concept plan, citing density and compatibility concerns

The Oswego Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-2 to reject a developers concept plan for a 6.7-acre site along Route 31 that would put 60 residential units (20 townhomes and a 40-unit condominium building) on land immediately west of the Fox River.

The commission heard a detailed presentation from Carrie Hansen of Schoppe Design Associates and developer Rohit Hingra of Property Add On, who described a plan that preserves roughly 37% of the site as open space, includes a roughly 325-foot riverfront setback and provides on-site parking that meets the villages UDO. Rohit Hingra said proposed condo units would average about 1,200 square feet while townhomes would be roughly 1,400 to 1,450 square feet, and confirmed the units were planned as for-sale product.

Commissioners and members of the public pressed the team on several points: whether the proposal aligned with the villages comprehensive-plan vision, how the five-story building would appear from Route 31, infrastructure and sewer connections for parcels not yet in the village, traffic and IDOT access-permit requirements, emergency vehicle access, and the overall intensity of the proposed density.

"We fully knew when we came here tonight that this is the first piece that's coming in that demonstrates to you what your plan means," Hansen said, explaining the applicant relied on the 2015 comprehensive plans downtown-district designation for the site and had coordinated preliminarily with the fire district on access.

Opponents at the public forum and several commissioners said the proposed density and scale would be out of character with existing single-family riverfront lots. One resident told the commission the proposal "just doesn't fit" the riverfront setting; others cited concerns about property values, wildlife interruption and a lack of immediate walkability to downtown because Route 31 crosses separate the site from the historic core.

Commissioners weighing the vote cited density as the principal objection. Chair and commissioners discussed that the existing surrounding neighborhoods have densities much lower than the proposals nearly nine units per acre, and several members said they would prefer a lower target density that better matches adjacent development.

The commissions motion to reject the concept plan carried on a 5-2 roll call. The vote did not advance a specific alternative plan; instead, members said they wanted clearer evidence the sites scale, buffering and infrastructure needs had been addressed before the developer pursued annexation and formal plan approvals.

The developer team said they would consider the commissions feedback before deciding whether to pursue the application with the village board. The chair reminded the public that if the developer files a formal application that requires a public hearing, adjacent property owners will be notified under the village code.

Next procedural steps are expected to be a decision by the developer whether to submit formal annexation and zoning applications to the village board and, if submitted, public hearings on those applications. The Planning and Zoning Commission scheduled its next meeting for February 5.