It took the couple about three years to build their dream house, a 9,200-square-foot mansion in a Barrington Hills subdivision, and although construction is complete, they can’t move in.
Village Administrator Robert Kosin told the homeowners in a letter earlier this month they can’t occupy the house until they comply with an original plan to replace so-called heritage trees.
Village ordinance regulates how many can be torn down and replaced during construction, defining the trees — an 8-inch hickory, for instance — as native to the region and of “significant historical value to the village of Barrington Hills.”
Read the full Daily Herald article here.
Sadly I was not home when this reporter attempted to contact me otherwise I would have gladly addressed this. The construction on Mr. Hasan’s property, in addition to destroying many protected trees, has caused extensive flooding to my property 7-8 times last year. The first 5 times my gardens flooded I repaired the damage and notified Mr. Hasan of the problem in emails and a phone call. The sixth flood came 2 days before I was to have 300 people attend a “pond walk” I was to host. I texted Mr. Hasan and requested he pay for this clean up. He did not.
There is a Tree Preservation ordinance in our Village Code that clearly outlines rules regarding the removal of heritage trees during construction. The owner has to submit a tree removal plan and submit a tree replacement plan prior to construction. Trees are allowed to be removed for the placement of the house. Any trees removed other than those have to be replaced inch for inch. At the beginning of construction, a lot owner is clearly informed of this.
There is an appeal process outlined in the ordinance. If any person feels aggrieved by the requirements they may appeal to the Plan Commission. In Mr. Hasan’s case they ruled against him. Their recommendation went to the Board of Trustees and the board voted to require Mr. Hasan to plant 110 trees. Section (E) 4. of the ordinance states “No occupancy certificate shall be issued until any required replacement of heritage trees, as required by the TRP or TPP has been completed and the final tree inspection approval has been given by the building officer.”
This ordinance has been in place since 12/17/07.
Much of the available space for heritage trees has been taken up by 140 spruce trees Mr. Hasan planted (not heritage trees). If those were removed there would be plenty of room.
The situation is complicated by the fact the Hasan’s have leased their house. It is unfortunate they will have to live in a hotel for a while, but when my house was being finished, my family lived at the Marriott in Hoffman Estates for 2 weeks and honestly, my kids loved it!
I wish no ill will toward the Hasans. I want nothing more than for the construction process to end. However, gorgeous 60-70 year old trees were “illegally” removed and the best I can hope for is as many replacement trees as possible.
Good luck with the flooding issue. Mine has been going on for over 8 years along with fecal contamination.
Hmmmmmm. … there is more to the story. Thanks for the enlightening comments Ms. Judd. Unfortunately, our Village is paying the price for past incompetence and a practice of favoring special interests instead of carrying out evenly the laws of the Village. We have history of situations in the prior administration where Village government favored one resident with influence over another. That practice will stop with honest government now in majority that will administer law for the rights of neighbors and property owners alike.
Think Home Occupation versus the Anderson Text Amendment. We are going to pay mightily for past political cronyism. Thank you Mr. Abboud (Long Meadow Parkway, illegal Committee appointments) and Mr. Gohl/Mr. Abboud (Police pension fund) and Mr. Messer/Chairperson Freeman (Anderson Text Amendment) for your political legacy.
Mr. Kosin, Mr. Schuman and Burke Warren appear to have administered laws unevenly depending on instructions from Mr. Abboud and past political majority favoring those who may have contributed most to their campaigns. Mr Harrington and Mr. Gohl still rant that a change in our attorney was unwarranted and fight to return to those days of special interest favoritism where they could wield unfair powers.
We look forward to more changes in Village Hall.