McHenry County Blog

The following press release was received from the Village of Barrington Hills. It concerns the 2030 Land Use Plan.  One of its objections is the almost complete abandonment of the horse raising heritage of McHenry County.

Barrington Hills horse farm.

When the first count of land uses was made in the late 1960′s there were tens of thousands of horses noted  I (77,000, I think).  In the 1960, Census there were 84,210 people.

Re: McHenry County 2030 Plan

1. Current categorization as “estate” has a negative impact on County land use and development/growth policies on Barrington Hills and its jurisdictional planning area.

a. The estate land use category does not sufficiently represent or protect the adopted land use policies of Barrington Hills as reflected in its comprehensive plan. We suggest a separate rural community or conservation community designation to reflect the unique character of Barrington Hills and similar communities, or a clarification and expansion of the estate category which fits the land use of Bull Valley and Barrington Hills that includes the farmettes described under the agricultural category. Parcels should be defined as those of up to 20 acres.

b. County policies to encourage density increases within low density areas and within existing municipalities both threatens the ability of Barrington Hills to maintain its low density character, and commitment of its private citizens to continue to support environmental stewardship efforts.

i. This policy to encourage density increase in the estate category is in conflict with recognition of the high quality water recharge area which includes Barrington Hills. Higher density will reduce recharge areas and negatively impact water quality.

c. Private conservation efforts should be encouraged as an alternative to the newer approach to conservation design that require public or common ownership of preservation areas. Common ownership often does not guarantee long term quality preservation as is often demonstrated by private ownership efforts.

2. Choosing only one model for future development (conservation design) is short-sighted and ignores the county’s own history and alternative approaches to conservation that have been in existence for over 50 years.

a. The 2030 plan should respect existing patterns of development and promote balanced growth to provide options for all types of communities – from rural-agricultural, estate and urban communities.

b. Communities similar to Barrington Hills have served to both preserve much of the County’s high quality environmental areas, and are an important part of the County’s history through their commitment to conservation that supports and nurtures the equestrian lifestyle. These communities provide a high quality of life for their residents, and those seeking a break from urban living. A low density area is advantageous to the adjacent residents from more densely populated areas who benefit from the increased capacity for water recharge; reduced draw down of the groundwater resources; air quality improvement from the air cleaning or scrubbing capabilities provided by the abundant plant life; and scenic views.

Encouraging the raising of alpakas is not mention in the release, but llamas are. These live in Black Jack Road south of Galena on the way to Chestnut Mountain Resort.

i. This type of private stewardship of nature and history offered by low density development is not valued and is marginalized in the plan as currently written.

ii. Moreover, the conservation design model currently described in the plan does not allow for McHenry County residents to have a multi-acre parcel for organic farming, raising llamas, horsekeeping or other hobbies which require a larger property, as in the conservation design model selected, the open space is commonly owned and to be preserved; not used for individual pursuits.

c. The lack of opportunities for communities like Barrington Hills and Bull Valley to be established, and the County’s growth policy to encourage higher densities in existing
communities will not only limit future conservation-minded people to seek to locate in McHenry and preserve its character and history, but will have a direct detrimental impact on the ability of Barrington Hills, and other similar communities, to maintain their character, history and quality of life.

d. The County should amend proposed planning policies to assist communities in preserving their desired vision and purpose established by their residents. The comprehensive plans of existing communities should govern both the develop of lands within their borders and the unincorporated territories subject to boundary agreements, and in areas where joint land use planning is consistent

3. The equestrian heritage of the county is ignored by the 2030 Plan

a. The document uses the term equestrian only twice. For a county which has been known for its large population of horses, this is insufficient mention.

b. There is no acknowledgment that people seek out McHenry County as a place to come to to establish equine therapy barns, horse rescue operations, and commercial show/boarder barns and for trail riding.

c. There is no acknowledgment that people seek out McHenry County as a place to come to to establish a small farm to keep their own small number of horses; and to pursue activities such as trail riding and equestrian sports.

d. This plan entirely misses a great opportunity to foster growth of the equine industry, by specifically providing for the expansion of horsekeeping in the county. The farmettes in turn support the larger parcels under the agricultural designation by increasing their customer base (for hay etc) and also maintain the eco-sensitive and predominantly rural character of our county.

4. The periodic assessment of the success of the plan should be more frequent and include community involvement

a. Waiting until 2015 for the first review of the plan is a time frame which is too far out.

b. County plan needs a “sensitivity” analysis to fully understand implication on all communities.

c. Implementation – as has been done in Kane County for years, County planning process should be continued and further refined through closer study of sub-regions through the creation of community partnerships of municipalities that share similar interests, and/or geographic areas. Only then will the County Plan be truly reflective of the aspirations, visions, and goals of all its citizens.

This analysis and these remarks were created with the assistance of the consultant firm which our Plan Commission utilizes, Teska Associates of Evanston, Illinois.

Dr. Elaine M. Ramesh
Trustee, Village of Barrington Hills
McHenry County Resident
Equestrienne

ALAW Spokeswoman Emily Berendt spoke at the Management Services Committee last week. While the subject matter was ALAW's proposed conflict of interest ordinance, there was byplay about the 2030 Plan and ALAW's haven't gotten what it wanted.

Something certainly is at stake in the 2030 County Land Use Plan to be voted upon at Tuesday night’s McHenry County Board meeting. The following press release from the Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water might give you an idea what:

BE PROUD OF DISTRICT SIX REPRESENTATIVES!
NOW THEY NEED OUR HELP TO GET THE AMENDMENTS PASSED

If you live in District 6, (or even if you don’t) you can be proud of your D-6 County Board Representatives: Mary McCann, Dan Ryan, Randy Donley and Ersel Schuster.

McHenry's District 4 County Board member Pete Merkel aggressively opposed ALAW's proposed ethics ordinance and took the opportunity also to note that ALAW had not gotten what the organization wanted in the 2030 Plan.

On Thursday at the Committee of the Whole Meeting for the County Board, the District 6 Representatives stood united and presented a MINORITY REPORT objecting to the proposed McHenry County Land Use Plan as is and introduced five amendments that effectively FIX most of the problems.  In an impressive show of representative unity, they jointly spoke for their constituents on the issues of farmland preservation, water recharge protection and compact, contiguous land use.

Among other things the amendments require that the Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Areas map be used in future zoning decisions (Fourth Amendment) and that the productivity of farmland be determined by use of the entire LESA assessment tool rather than just by the LE score of the soils (Third Amendment). The Fifth Amendment offers a much more reasonable map for Future Land Use than the currently recommended one in the Plan.

Even if you don’t live in District 6, THESE PEOPLE NEED OUR SUPPORT NOW. These amendments will FIX the Plan.

Not all other members of the County Board were thrilled with these amendments.

In fact, some are downright opposed and will certainly be working to prevent them from even reaching the floor.

IT IS TIME TO CALL ALL COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS AND TELL THEM YOU WANT ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO PASS! Call District 6 members to thank them.

Call the others to tell them you support District 6 amendments.  Read them AND CALL FOR their passage! (list attached).  FIX that Plan or NIX that Plan!

PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO YOUR OTHER GROUPS AND ANY OTHER PERSON YOU THINK MIGHT BE INTERESTED. The attached Minority Report is in pdf format. If you can’t open it, you can find it on the County Board agendafor April 20 or email us and we will get it to you.

Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water, Inc.
PO Box 1021, Woodstock, IL

One of ALAW's leaders, Emily Berendt defends the group's revised conflict of interest proposal before a county board committee.

The following press release has been received from the Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water:

The 2030 Plan will be up for a vote at the County Board Meeting on April 20 at 7 PM.

At their March 18 meeting, Planning and Development committee showed the ultimate disrespect for their constituents (you) when they did NOT review any public comments, indicating that they had heard it all before, and weren’t interested.

Chair, Tina Hill, told one of our members that she planned to revisit some technical comments at the next meeting on April 1, 2010, including a list of discrepancies in the definition of “infrastructure” that she had requested.

McHenry County Board member Tina Hill criticizes ALAW ethics ordinance at the same meeting of the Management Services Committee.

NO discussion of any comments took place at that meeting either. Makes you wonder how much TAX $$ went into those wasted public meetings that we all diligently attended.

NOW WHAT?

1. Please, take that comment/letter you wasted on the P&D Committee and send it to the media as a letter to the editor. Copy to all county Board Members. Contact information is attached.

2. If you didn’t write a public comment, now is your second chance.

3. Attend the County Board Voting meeting April 20 at 7 pm and demand that they FIX THIS PLAN OR NIX THIS PLAN. HOW?

a. Go back to Ag (Green!) for everything outside of municipal boundaries.
b. Overlay the SARA (Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Areas map) on every new development as part of the approval process,
c. Require that all new development be contiguous to water, sewer and municipal services, not just roads and rails,
d. Reduce the population projection to the official US Census projection of 443,398 an increase of 125,398 people.

If you are not able to speak at these meetings, that’s all right. Your presence will add to the numbers and say that you care about the future of your county.

4. Call your County Board members. Tell them that this Plan is not acceptable as is and they must fix it.  If you need to brush up on why, see the attached info or go to www.mchenrycountygreenalliance.blogspot.com

WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT YOU HAVE SHOWN OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS AND HOPE WE HAVE MANAGED TO MAKE SOME DIFFERENCE. THIS BATTLE HAS BEEN A LONG ONE.  WE HOPE YOU ARE STILL ENERGIZED ENOUGH TO HELP.  IT IS STILL IMPORTANT, AND WE CAN STILL HAVE AN IMPACT. THANKS FOR ANYTHING YOU CAN DO IN THIS LAST ROUND FOR THE 2030 PLAN.

Your ALAW Board of Directors

The following newsletter was received from the Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water. It talks about

• the 2030 Plan planners ignoring citizen comments
• the “Fair Map” Reapportionment Amendments
• the ALAW Conflict of Interest ordinance
• Mike Tryon’s bill to prevent Water Authorities
• the Fleming Road Alliance

NEW INFORMATION: Send an email to FlemingRoadAlliance@gmail.com

if you want to be added to their mailing list for updates.

Hello All:
Just an update on several issues ALAW is working on.  More information about each project is available on our web site.

2030 plan

The Planning and Development Committee of the County Board last week demonstrated the ultimate disrespect for its constituents when it did NOT review any of your comments after they held meetings on your dime to solicit them. They accepted the staff prepared map changes to reflect the population reduction, and asked staff to prepare a resolution for their April 1 meeting to accept the plan as it is and send on to county board for a full vote on April 20.  On April 20 there can still be amendments from the floor.  Please call your county board members and pass your comments on to them.  The list is attached, as well as a district map.

Fair Map Amendment

After the 2010 census our county and state districts will be realigned. ALAW supports the Illinois Fair Map Amendment and asks that you sign a petition to get this amendment on the November 2010 ballot for the voters. Whats wrong with the current method of drawing districts?  Go to our web site and click on Illinois Fair Map Amendment for more information and to download a petition.

ALAW’s Conflicts Disclosure Ordinance

It was presented to the County Board for consideration on December 3, 2009, is posted on the web site.  You will remember that 27 county board candidates voluntarily filed the form after the ordinance was delivered, primarily by candidates in the primary election for county board. The ordinance is under consideration by the county’s Management Services Committee at this time, and will be up for another session on April 6 at 8:30 a.m.

“WE DON’T NEED NO — WATER AUTHORITIES!”

Representative Mike Tryon has introduced a bill in the General Assembly, HB4757, that will ban water authorities, taking away the only tool the average citizen has to protect against overwithdrawal and damage by large users.  We have been in touch with Mike (as well as Jack Franks and Pam Althoff). We would like to see Mike kill this bill and replace it with something that genuinely provides fair protection for all. Mike is working with “several entities” according to Senator Pam Althoff (but not us). We can only hope. Details on our web site under NO MORE WATER AUTHORITIES.

Notes left at the Fleming Road improvement public hearing. Click to enlarge.

WE SUPPORT THE FLEMING ROAD ALLIANCE

Watch for a link soon on the ALAW web site for the Fleming Road Alliance.  Meanwhile send an email to FlemingRoadAlliance@gmail.com to be added to their mailing list for updates. The County Transportation Division held an Open House last week to divide and conquer the residents regarding their plans to “rehabilitate” and improve Fleming Rd.  What that really entails was pretty vague.

The neighbors are rallying to ask questions and there is a neighborhood meeting in the works.

The Alden Road Alliance is still waiting for further information on their road after McDOT agreed to go back to the drawing board with the plans. Neither road needs the extent of work that is proposed.

As always we appreciate your support.  Please feel free to email us back.

If, like I, you have not looked at the 2030 McHenry County Land Use Plan, you might want to and send you reaction to the county board.

Comments were supposed to be over, but, because the county’s capacity to receive emails didn’t work this past weekend, the comment deadline has been extended to 4:30 this coming Thursday. Below is a press release to that effect:

McHenry County Department of Planning & Development announces:

Due to technical difficulties with our server over the weekend, the comment period for the 2030 Plan has been extended to Thursday March 11 at 4:30 p.m.

The County had received reports of e‐mails to 2030Plan@co.mchenry.il.us not being delivered. This issue has now been corrected. Those interested in commenting on the plan may do so at that e‐mail address or by mail at: 2030 Plan, c/o Department of Planning & Development, 2200 N. Seminary Ave., Woodstock, IL 60098.

All comments received by the deadline will be reviewed by the Planning and Development Committee of the County Board.

And the “IF” was in capital letters.

Metra Executive Director Phil Pagano and Joseph Gottemoller, attorney for Metra, appear before the Crystal Lake City Council seeking permission to proceed with annexation of the land for a Ridgefield commuter station.

Metra Executive Director Phil Pagano returned to his home town city council for a second time seeking permission to proceed with plans seeking approval for a new commuter train station in Ridgefield next to the old 84 and new Alexandra Lumber location.

The proposal debated by city council members basically said that if Metra met all the requirements set by the city council that it could gain annexation to the city.

Mayor Aaron Shepley framed the debate like this:

“The question is solely whether council wishes to assume control of development of this project.”

At the end of the debate, the council voted 5-2 to assume control. Jeff Thorsen and Ralph Dawson voted “No.”

Jeff Thorsen registered his complaint about what he saw as the one-sided nature of the agreement.

Thorsen thought the agreement too one-sided.

“The agreement does not even require they ever annex,” he said. “At the end of the day, we can’t say ‘No.’ You can say ‘No.’”

He worried that if money is needed to enforce Crystal Lake’s Watershed Ordinance that Metra would not have to pay its fair share.

Shepley wondered if Thorsen wanted county government to be the approving governmental entity, as it was for 84 Lumber, which property covers more of the watershed than would be allowed had it been annexed to Crystal Lake.

“If the county wants to be irresponsible about developing it, then it’s not on my shoulders,” Thorsen replied.

Later Councilwoman Ellen Brady Mueller pointed out that the proposed 2030 Plan for county land development does not recognize Crystal Lake’s Watershed Ordinance.

Ralph Dawson views a Ridgefield Metra Station in Crystal Lake as a way to stretch city police forces too thin.

Ralph Dawson worried about extending city police protection still farther, pointing out that the Pingree Road Station had had vandalism problems, which Crystal Lake Police had to handle.

“It’s a far stretch from the city limits,” Dawson said. “I cannot support the City of Crystal Lake annexing the station. I don’t think the city should be obligated to go that far out to give it service.”

Trying to pour water on the fire, Pagano affirmed, “Metra intends to work with the city on the watershed…and traffic.”

Still Dawson concluded,

“I don’t see my taxpayers to benefit on this project.”

Brady Mueller asked,

“Are we out there already?”

Police Chief David Lindner pointed out that his force already served nearby McHenry County College and

“If there is a request from the Sheriff and we’re closer, we go out there.”

Ellen Brady Mueller argued for city control of the Crystal Lake watershed on which the proposed Metra station would be located.

Brady Mueller wanted to know,

“Why in the world would we want to give up a piece of property in the watershed?”

“We want to have the control.”

Cathy Ferguson agreed:

“I want control. I have enormous traffic concerns.”

Both relative newcomers Brett Hopkins and Carolyn Schofield concurred.

“I’d absolutely like to see it under control of the city, rather than the county,” Schofield said.

Summing up, Shepley said,

"If we say, 'No', we're counting on somebody else to do our job," Mayor Aaron Shepley said.

“We have fought like wolverines to control what goes on in the watershed. It’s not just our right; it’s our obligation.

“There is no done deal. Mr. Hopkins said it. The only question is who should we be dealing with.

“The downside for them is if they don’t meet our standards, they still have to go to the county.

“As far as police enforcement goes, Mr. Dawson, I think that is a fair concern. If it should go to the county we’ll still be the first responders.

“The difference is that the benefits will not fall to the Crystal Lake side of the ledger.

“If we say ,’No,’ we’re counting on somebody else to do our job.”

Dawson suggested the county was “in a new era. They’re talking about water, at least they’re making waves in an election year.”

“If the county is good, we’re better,” Shepley stated. “We owe it to the people to protect their interest.”

You read what the Woodstock Independent, the Northwest Herald and the Daily Herald want to know about and from candidates. Here’s what the Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water are interested in learning about those running for the McHenry County Board:

ALAW County Board Candidates Survey: 2010 Primary Election

Please, indicate yes or no in the box to the right of the question.

A. Land Use

1. Have you personally attended any of the Regional Planning Commission meetings or subcommittee meetings on the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan?

2. Have you read the proposed 2030 Land Use Plan?

3. Do you think the makeup of the 2030 Regional Planning Commission was a balanced representation of the residents of the county?

4. Do you agree that new development should be located where infrastructure exists, to minimize the extension of new roads, utilities and services, and protect farmland and water recharge areas?

5. If elected, will you support funding permanent protection of agricultural land and the agricultural industry in the County?

6. Do you understand that new rural development costs more for the extension of infrastructure (roads, water, sewer and services) than it brings to the County in taxes and that those extra costs are passed on to the existing taxpayers?

7. Do you support creation of the Hac-Ma-Tac National Wildlife Refuge in the county?

B. Water Resources

1. Would you oppose any land use change that would exceed a locally recharged aquifer’s capacity?

2. If elected will you enforce use of the SARA – Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Areas map developed by the County Water Resources Department, as a determining factor in every land use change decision?

3. Do you support redistributing groundwater from water-rich areas to areas that have over drawn their groundwater?

4. Do you think that McHenry County will be able to get water from Lake Michigan?

C. Transparency in Government

1. Would you support a requirement that all elected or appointed county officials make up-front disclosures of any financial or other interest in any real property in the County?

2. Do you support a requirement that all elected or appointed county officials make up-front disclosures of their interest in any business entity doing business with the county?

3. Do you believe that public officials should disclose whether they provide professional services to any unit of government to which they are elected or appointed?

4. Do you agree that all scheduled meetings agendas and minutes, including committee and sub-committee, should be posted on the County web site?

5. Do you agree that all McHenry County Board meetings should be video recorded and posted on the County web site?

D. Short Answer. Only the number of words indicated will be published in the response report. (please add a page if you need more room, but remember that we can only print the number of words indicated. Thank you.)

1. What role do you think the County should play in planning for growth? (50 words)

2. By protecting agricultural lands and soil resources, groundwater and its natural recharge can also be protected. What will you do to provide that protection? (50 words)

3. What does the County get from its annual contract with the McHenry County Economic Development Corporation and is it a good investment of taxpayer money? (50 words)

4. Who do you consider to be your constituents and how do you intend to communicate with them to ensure your positions honestly represent them? (50 words)

5. Please provide a personal statement about what you intend to accomplish, if elected to the County Board, and/or provide additional information regarding any of the “ / no” yes answers given above. (100 words)

Answers are due January 11th.

Good Morning. My name is Kim Willis and this morning I am speaking to you on behalf of the Environmental Defenders of McHenry County, located at 124 Cass Street in Woodstock.

You’ve just heard a brief overview of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan document, and I’d like to thank  Mr. Eldridge, Mr. Dreher, and Mr. Sandquist for providing you with that overview.

The Defenders have followed the Regional Planning Commission and staff through the hundreds of hours they have dedicated to creating this document for you. We applaud their efforts and commitment to this important process.

The plan, in its current form, represents an honest attempt at balance.

However, it starts from an assumption of preserving the status quo of recent growth, then tries to balance everything else we value within that framework. This will defer difficult problems to our children, as the status quo runs up against our county’s physical limitations of water, food dependence, infrastructure and the inevitable end to easy development. Instead, we have the opportunity to start with a focus on these actual physical realities and work to balance the interests of development within this more prudent framework.

As such, the Defenders will continue to advocate for greater consideration of water resources, agriculture and open space in this document. Our most significant request at this stage is that the existing basic provisions made for environmental concerns be preserved, spared from deletion or dilution.

Our members, along with many other members of the public who commented on the draft plan, overwhelming called for the plan to reflect their desires to protect the water resources, open spaces and agricultural land in McHenry County.

We ask the members of the Planning and Development Committee, as well as the Board as a whole to maintain the current protections provided to our community’s water, food, and natural areas, act upon the general public’s request for greater protection to land and water, and ensure the final plan provides a more equitable vision for the future of McHenry County.

Thank You.

Here’s a press release from a group I have not heard of before, the McHenry County Green Team:

YOUR COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION NEEDS YOUR INPUT!

The McHenry County Green Team encourages all residents to read the proposed 2030 Land Use Plan.

Copies are available at the County Planning and Development office and on line at www.mchenrycounty2030plan.com.

Comments on the draft plan can be submitted via email to 2030plan@co.mchenry.il.us or in writing to McHenry County 2030 Plan, Department of Planning and Development, McHenry County Government Center, 2200 North Seminary Avenue, Woodstock, IL 60098.

All comments must be received by 4:30 PM, Friday, July 10, 2009.

“If the average resident would just get a copy and read this plan, they would be shocked,” says Green Team member Joyce Kunath.

The plan currently encourages dramatic residential, industrial, and commercial growth in unincorporated areas.

This kind of growth plan is not only destructive to the very resources that sustain us, but will be expensive to support.

“No land use plan should require existing residents to subsidize future residents,” says Green Team member Joe Daleiden.

McHenry County Green Team Members attended several sessions of the recent McHenry County Regional Planning Commission presentation of the Plan.

“We are encouraged by the priorities of most participants in these meetings,” stated Green Team member Patricia Kennedy.

“But substantial changes must be made to conform the plan to these priorities. Residents want to keep the rural feel of the unincorporated western county, preserving farmland and open space and protecting our water supply. These are the same priorities in the results of the Imagine McHenry County Survey done in 2006.”

Green Team member Michelle Kuhlman adds,

“encouraging development without first knowing the long-term sustainable water availability is a prescription for disaster. Without sufficient water McHenry County real estate will become almost worthless.”

Green Team member Rich Brook summed it up saying,

“Long term sustainable agricultural land is a prime prerequisite to survival of the species. There could be almost three billion more persons in the world by the middle of this century and the United States is one of only a few areas in the world with a significant (but shrinking) agricultural surplus. In the near future, farmland will be more valuable as farmland than as developed land.”

At least one County Board member at the Plan Commission’s Tuesday sessions agreed that water is a priority resource and the plan needs changes.

For more information about the McHenry County Green Team email us at mchenrycountygreenteam@yahoo.com.

McHenry County Green Team, Patricia Kennedy, Official Spokesperson, 815-943-7223, kishvalleywater@yahoo.com, Mail: ALAW, PO Box 1021, Woodstock, IL 60098

It was in an Algonquin Countryside article by John Gonigam and concerned McHenry County’s 2030 Plan.

Jung was explaining how a developer can get a municipality to violate the county government’s plan through what is usually called “strip annexation.”

Jung is the District 5 county board candidate whom I believe to be most vulnerable to the Democratic Party challenge by Lake in the Hills candidate Paula Yensen.

My own village of Lakewood used the strip annexation approach in the dark of night to annex Turnberry, when the developers balked at Crystal Lake’s development impact fees.

I don’t think I can ever remember my father being more disturbed.