Two Semis Could Be Parked Next Door in Unincorperated Areas

Because I mixed up the two “McC’s” on the County Board, I have moved this article to the top. It was Mary McClellan who joined Michele Aavang in sponsoring the amendment, not Mary McCann. I apologize for the mistake.

Semi from vack fron sid view

Two semi-trucks could be parked on a residential lot in unincorporated McHenry County, according to rules approved by the McHenry County Board last week.

One amendment to the new zoning ordinance approved 14-6 by the McHenry County Board this past week may interest some.

Take a look at what the County Board members saw:

UDO 2 Semis Amendment Aavang + McCan

The amendment sponsored by District 6 County Board members Michele Aavang and Mary McClellan..

By eliminating the maximum length, it appears that two semi trucks, complete with tractors, could be parked on every residential lot.

Those voting in favor:

Michele Aavang was a sponsor of the amendment.

Michele Aavang was a sponsor of the amendment.

  • Aavang
  • Chirikos
  • Draffkorn
  • Gottemoller
  • Heisler
  • Hill
  • Jung
  • Koehler
  • Martens
  • McCann
  • McClellan
  • Nowak
  • Schofield
  • Yensen
Mary McClellan was a sponsor of the amendment.

Mary McClellan was a sponsor of the amendment.

Those voting against:

  • Hammerand
  • Kurtz
  • Provenzano
  • Schuster
  • Skala
  • Walkup

Those absent:

  • Barnes
  • Evertsen
  • Miller
  • Salgado


Two Semis Could Be Parked Next Door in Unincorperated Areas — 18 Comments

  1. Just what I’ve always wanted to see…..

    2 semis , up close and personal

  2. If you want onerous restrictions on what your neighbors can do with their own land, move to Crystal Lake.

    This whole UDO business is stupid.

  3. And to prove how stupid it really is just look at the junk they actually vote on.

    Apparently you have to pass it to find out what is in it.

    Isn’t this how we ended up with Oblamacare?

  4. Also, since these are vehicles and not structures, there are no set backs, so they can be parked right up against the property line, regardless of the size of the property.

    That plus a large boat and a trailer that people are living in.

    We have many people in the waterfront neighborhoods with narrow lots.

    These could even be parked on the side portion of the lot next to the house.

  5. I have a wonderful neighbor whose house sits across 5 (60′)residential lots.

    Does that mean I could potentially see 10 tractor/trailors one day?

  6. Stupid is – stupid does.

    Scrap the whole UDO thing!

    Adopt the Houston approach.

  7. “Breaker 19 Good Buddy, Them Bears Are Getting Intense Up There!”

    I see endless business possibilities here…

    “Taco Trucks?”

    “Pot Growing ops via a semi’s own diesel powered electrical systems?”

    Are there any provisions in the new law that states the Tractor Trailers Diesel engines must be shut down when parked?

    How about generators to power the ‘live in’ camper trailers?

    Right from the comfort of your front yard!


  8. I don’t remember semi’s being an issue in the beginning.

    I know they were talking about recreational toys and things like the silver bullet picture.

    I think we should investigate WHO owns semi’s that wanted this included ?

    Sounds like a back yard deal to me.

  9. Before, these same folks who agreed to this were ready to take all your rights away..

    now they are giving them back to you with a force that hurts…

    why would they offer severe restrictions initially…

    restrict you all to the limit….

    then opt now to restrict you not at all…

    so now you neighbor can park a semi without set back blocking your light and right to enjoy your property…

    we only ask our leaders to lead with a little common sense.

    It is not nearly hard as they want you to think…

    to protect your right to free and fair use of your property whilst not harming your neighbor’s free and fair use of theirs…

    this whole exercise is becoming folly.

  10. Those who voted YES should all voluntarily resign!

    They are totally inept and have no idea what they are doing.

    Remember, voters, you got rid of one of the few people with common sense in the primary!

    Schuster will be gone at the end of Nov.

    The Board really needs to keep Hammerand and gain Andrew Gasser plus Chuck Wheeler.

    Chirikos and Yensen REALLY need to be gone – they are both a danger to the future of the County!!

    McCann needs to be banished to the blueberry patch in two years!!

    I wonder how much campaign money she gained with this motion?

    Aavang has to be an embarrassment to the Ag community!

  11. I live in the unicorporated area of Crystal Lake, and am thankful that I live in a subdivision with lots of rules.

    I’d prefer not to see RV’s and boats or semis crowding the area.

    I would not have moved into this unincorporated area without these restrictions, so check these things out before you move into an area!

  12. I’m with you Really? on 10/07/2014 at 7:38 am.

    I live within the city of Crystal Lake and don’t want to see them either.

    I guess I could move!

    Living in a city is different than living in a rural area.

    I guess I just don’t like living next to boats, motor homes, trailers and large construction trucks.

    If they are legal within the city I guess that at least the city gains vehicle sticker money from them all!


  13. In answer to “CU There”, P & D advises me that someone would not be able to park trailers on a parcel that does not have a residence on it so that person could only have the two trailers no matter how many parcels are involved.

    You can’t leave vehicles on vacant lots.

    On the other hand, we have no explicit rules on how long the trailer portion of the tractor trailer could be left on the property without the cab attached.

    Presumably someone could drive off in the cab and come back later for the trailer or have two trailers that they alternate using but if a trailer by itself were to be left for “too long” it would be considered a structure that would require the necessary zoning. (Think “American Pickers”).

    The problem here is that there is no time period specified at present.

    Joe G. has also indicated that we can’t go back to amendments that have already been voted upon to try to amend them further unless one of the members who voted for it in the first instance makes a motion to suspend the rules and reconsider it.

    Therefore, it is unlikely that we will be able to clarify some of the questions posed by this amendment.

  14. Re-read Jeff Thorsen’s post above.

    I think there is a whole lot more behind this than we see.

    As time goes by the real reason for changing their minds will be shown.

  15. Am I the only person who isn’t bothered at all by this?

    Are people really complaining about having their rights taken away and then two days later outraged that the law is TOO permissive?

    People’s lawns have just never been an issue for me.

    I’m not going to tell them what to do on it unless it involves them harming somebody.

  16. Joe?

    How can you not be bothered by this?

    Your reasoning is precisely why we are up-in-arms on this subject.

    It’s none of the government’s business!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.