Public concern over a controversial development in Sugar Grove continues, as evidenced by Tuesday’s unofficial election results. Unofficial results from Tuesday night appear to show the ousting of current village president Jennifer Konen and an incumbent village trustee, and the passage of a non-b inding referendum question asking the village to reverse its decision on the controversial Crown development project. The advisory referendum asking the village to reverse its decision to allow the project appears to have passed with 57.74% of votes as of Tuesday night, according to unofficial election results from the Kane County Clerk’s Office. Of 7,056 registered voters in Sugar Grove, just over one-third voted in Tuesday’s election. The Sugar Grove Village Board approved the 760-acre mixed-use development known as The Grove, as well as an agreement to annex the property into the village and to give the developer financial incentives via a tax increment financing district, in September despite public opposition. According to past reporting, The Grove, proposed by land owner and developer Crown Community Development, will sit on what is currently mostly farmland surrounding the Interstate 88 and Route 47 interchange in what was previously unincorporated Kane County. The plan is for the area to include neighborhoods, mixed-use commercial and residential areas, a walkable town center and a business park area, Crown representatives have previously said. A rendering shows what the town center planned at The Grove development might look like. (Norris Design) As of late September, Crown was in the process of getting contracts in place for the engineering design of the first phase of development, according to past reporting, with the goal of beginning work on the site in fall 2025. A petition to get a non-binding referendum on the ballot about reversing the project got over 500 signatures and was submitted to the village of Sugar Grove in December, according to past reporting. The full text of the question read, according to the Kane County Clerk’s Office, “Should the Village of Sugar Grove’s approval of “The Grove,” a development project by Sugar Grove LLC/Crown Community Development, located near Interstate 88 and Illinois Route 47, be immediately reversed using all necessary and lawful measures?” The goal of the non-binding question, according to Pat Gallagher, the primary proponent of the petition to get the referendum on the April 1 ballot, was to give voters a chance to express their feelings on the development and prompt village leadership to explore ways to reverse the approval of the controversial project. “There’s a lot of apprehension about this project, both in the TIF and the industrial aspects of it,” Gallagher said over the phone on Wednesday. “I think this gives a clear message to the board that, you know, the village does not want this, the residents don’t want this, and everything should be done to try to get us out of this deal that clearly the public is against.” Gallagher is affiliated with Neighbors for Sensible Growth, a local organization that has vocally opposed the Crown development. A spokesperson from Crown said on Wednesday that they “remain committed to creating a vibrant development that will benefit the community and look forward to working with the village of Sugar Grove as plans progress.” In addition to the apparent passage of the referendum question, Village President Jennifer Konen’s seat was also up for grabs on Tuesday. As of Tuesday night, unofficial results from Kane County show Konen with 41.99% of the votes and challenger Susan Stillwell with 58.01%. Konen has been in support of the Crown development project. Stillwell, on the other hand, previously told The Beacon-News that voters are concerned about the TIF proposal for the development project, saying it would interfere with lowering taxes for residents. In an email statement Thursday morning, Stillwell said that she is “ready to open the lines of communication, listen to residents and neighbors and bring everyone together again” and that her campaign “heard (the community’s) voices in regard to the advisory referendum and will do everything that we can to advocate for our community.” Village Administrator Scott Koeppel said that the village “look(s) forward to working with the mayor-elect and the newly elected trustees” in an email statement to The Beacon-News on Wednesday. Konen did not respond to a follow-up request for comment on Wednesday afternoon. As for the village trustees, three seats were up for grabs on Election Day, according to the Kane County Clerk’s Office. Four candidates were in the running: incumbent James White and challengers Nora London, Michael Roskopf and Anthony Speciale. As of the unofficial election results reported on Tuesday night in Kane County, the three challengers were leading. Nora London had 27.96% of the vote, Michael Roskopf had 27.72% and Anthony Speciale had 23.87%. White, who voted in favor of the Crown development in September, was trailing as of Tuesday night with 20.44% of the votes, according to unofficial election results from the Kane County Clerk’s Office. The two current trustees opposed to the development, Heidi Lendi and Sean Michels, were not up for reelection and will sit on the board until at least 2027, according to the village’s website. The trustees opposed have previously expressed concern that the financial incentives offered to Crown would divert tax dollars away from local governments and other taxing bodies, like the school district. In February, Kaneland School District 302 said it was considering legal action against the village over the tax increment financing district for the project, saying it would limit property tax revenue. The school district’s proposal to issue over $140 million in bonds to pay for school building improvements also appears to have passed on Election Day, according to unofficial election results. Gallagher said he’s watching the school board’s discussion of litigation against the village and thinks it could be the “primary mode to challenge this right now.” And, while the development project is still set to move forward as of now, he’s hopeful that new elected officials in the village may be more open to considering ways to reverse course. “Certainly, it’s advisory,” Gallagher said Wednesday about the referendum, “but, you know, I think it opens up the door for them (the Village Board) to … talk to the village attorney and say, like, ‘Hey, what are our options here?’, see what can be done to get out of the agreement and contracts.” mmorrow@chicagotribune.com ...read more read less