McHenry County Board member Mike Walkup has identified a problem that resulted from taking the unpopular RV, boat, snowmobile storage restrictions out of the proposed new zoning ordinance.
You can see what was voted down below:
Walkup’s observations are below:
One of the effects of having 24 people try to decide the UDO on the fly is that when you go to change one thing to address one issue, it may have ripple effects that you don’t intend.
Case in Point: The lifting of the RV parking restrictions.
Although everyone was in favor of lifting those restrictions, an amendment proposed by Mary McClellan also added that trailers and RV’s could be occupied for indefinite periods of time while parked on someone’s property.
This can lead to, in effect, a separate residence being allowed on the property, assuming that septic and water issues (and heat for the trailer in Winter) could be addressed.
On larger lots, like a say an acre, which do not have subdivision restrictions, someone could rent out their unused trailer as a second residence and put in a separate septic and water well access, provided that the soils are suitable for a second septic system or hookup to an existing system.
A family could live in this Airstream trailer under the proposed zoning ordinance as it stands now.
I have confirmed with P & D that the regulations as they now stand are indefinite.
Although it was the intention of the Board I am sure that permanent dwellings are not to be created by this measure, that is not spelled which could lead to potential litigation.
The question is, why would that be a problem?
If they provide for the sanitation issues, through connecting to existing septic systems if they will support it, or adding more if the ground will support it, why shouldn’t the owner of the property be allowed to choose to do this with their property?
That sounds great in theory Eric but you also have to consider the effect on a neighbor who wakes up one morning to find that there is a camper/trailer being occupied as a residence ten feet from his lot line, especially on 1/2 to one acre lots like we have a lot of in my district.
I will be getting calls from those people.
Mike, you should tell you constituents that if they want restrictive residential zoning, they should move to Crystal Lake.
The people who voluntarily live in unincorporated areas purchased their land knowing full well that there were fewer restrictions on land use than in the municipalities.
Every week there’s a new “problem” spotted.
Maybe the zoning ordinance itself is the problem.
Maybe it’s time to start over.
Joe: You hit the proverbial nail on the head!!
Throw this monstrosity out!!!!
The County Board shafted the taxpayers when they hired Camiros Ltd. to create the UDO MONSTER.
Camiros is an adherent to Agenda 21 and specializes in creating more government control within MUNICIPALITIES.
I have had conversations with the staff members from Camiros who are involved and can tell you they know very, very little about zoning in unincorporated areas.
The outcome of the 2030 Planning Commission was not the greatest but at least it included ONE person directly involved in agriculture.
The UDO effort appears to have completely ignored input from residents in unincorporated McHenry and ONLY paid attention to input from residents in municipalities.
Can someone explain to me why Board Members who live in municipalities should be able to DICTATE to people who live in unincorporated areas?
Maybe we should require residency in unincorporated areas to run for a County Board seat!!
Contrary to some popular opinion, I DO live in an unincorporated area.
Hence the chickens.
Mike, my question is still, Why is that a problem?
When those constituents call, you can inform them that their property rights extend to their property line and no further, and that unless there is a safety issue extending across that property line, it is none of their business where their neighbor wants to park on his own property.