Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer updates Hidden Creek subdivision plan; trustees press on floodplain, park size and lot mix
Summary
Developer Rich Hoorart presented an expanded concept for Hidden Creek Subdivision, highlighting added acreage, five parks, an interconnected trail system and about 40% open space. Trustees pressed on floodplain handling, detention‑area maintenance and park size for higher‑density housing; no formal approvals were sought.
At the Village of Hampshire board meeting, developer representative Rich Hoorart presented an updated concept plan for the Hidden Creek Subdivision and invited feedback before filing formal annexation and zoning applications.
Hoorart said the ownership recently acquired additional land to the south and adjusted the plan to add two main access points, widen product mix and increase connectivity. “We have 5 individual parks scattered throughout the entire site” and the plan incorporates roughly 40% open space, he said, adding the design includes a north area devoted to predominantly single‑family lots and a southern area with townhomes and duplexes intended to broaden housing choices.
Trustees raised several technical and livability questions. One trustee asked whether some duplex buildings appeared to lie inside the mapped floodplain; Hoorart said engineers have studied the area and that a map amendment and elevation work would be pursued so “no homes would be in the floodplain.” Board members also pressed the developer on the size and purpose of enlarged detention areas—one detention basin in the plan grew substantially after stormwater study—and on who would pay ongoing maintenance. Hoorart said maintenance would likely fall to an HOA and that stormwater changes were a tradeoff for the project’s expanded open‑space and trail network.
Board members sought clarification on lot widths and density. The developer said the plan retains large lots in the north and added smaller 70‑foot frontages in some areas to control infrastructure costs while relying on open space and trails to reduce perceived density. Trustees asked the team to consider enlarging or reconfiguring small neighborhood parks serving higher‑density units and to coordinate with the park district and fire protection district on future uses for reservation areas.
The presentation was treated as advisory: as the president reminded the audience, the concept review does not substitute for the state‑mandated annexation and zoning process. The developer said the team will incorporate feedback and proceed with engineering and formal planning filings. The board did not take an approval vote on the concept itself.
Next steps: the developer intends to file required planning and zoning applications; staff said formal annexation, zoning and plats would return to the planning and zoning commission and then to the village board for final decisions.
