Construction begins on controversial 761-acre development in Sugar Grove
Construction of a controversial 761-acre mixed-use development in Sugar Grove has started, the developer announced Thursday.
In a news release, Crown Community Development says it broke ground on Area 1 of The Grove. It is the site’s first residential neighborhood. Area 1 is off Merrill Road and will have 214 single-family houses.
The developer has received a mass-grading permit, according to village President Sue Stillwell.
The development is at I-88 and Route 47. The developer plans to build about 1,400 residences, stores, a town center, and a 323-acre business area.
“We are thrilled to break ground on The Grove and begin this exciting new chapter in the Village of Sugar Grove,” said Jennifer Cowan, managing director of Crown Community Development, in the news release. “This milestone reflects our ongoing commitment to the community and to delivering a vibrant, high-quality development. We remain dedicated to the success of this project and to creating long-term value for all stakeholders.”
The developer is due to receive as much as $109 million in financial aid from the village, through a tax increment financing district the village board approved in 2024.
Hundreds of village and nearby residents protested the development and the creation of the TIF district.
Kaneland Unit School District 302 is suing the village, contending it was wrong to approve the development and create the TIF district. It is asking a judge to order Sugar Grove to dissolve the Grove TIF district.
The suit was filed on June 13. The village has not yet filed a response. The first court date is Sept. 30.
The lawsuit claims the land is not eligible to be a TIF district because it is not blighted. The village determined the site was blighted because surface water discharged from the land contributes to flooding in the Blackberry Creek watershed.
The school district says an engineering memo and the village ordinance approving the TIF eligibility report “merely stand for the unremarkable proposition that surface water flows downhill.”
The lawsuit disputes the village’s contention that the land was not likely to be developed without the TIF district and financial incentives. It also contends that part of the TIF district is not contiguous to other parts of the district.