I was gratified to see a good turnout of people interested in participating in the Longmeadow Parkway project. I have been participating in public meetings on this project for the past 20 years, and I have always welcomed the opportunity to listen to people’s comments, questions and concerns.
The development of this bridge corridor has been in the planning and development stages since the 1990s, and represents a true partnership of residents working with federal, state, county and local agencies to plan, fund and implement the corridor improvements.
Read Schmitt’s full statement in the Kane County Chronicle by clicking here.
Editorial note: It’s unclear why Schmitt is doggedly defending and promoting the Kane County Longmeadow corridor considering the significant number of retailers, restaurants and service establishments along Algonquin Road which currently rely on commuters for business. Diverting these customers would likely result in less revenue for these businesses and decreased revenue from sales taxes to the Village of Algonquin.
I’ve been saying this for months – why is diverting traffic good for the establishments along rt 62? Is there a trade-off towards more revenue for potential new businesses at the intersection of LMP and Randall Road? Who owns the land at this junction? Will traffic on Randall Road become worse due to this project? BTW – 1990’s planning and viewpoint should be re-evaluated vs. current and near term trends of population and employment losses let alone upgrades on I-90. All of which factor against this expenditure in a time when our state and local fiscal budgets are awful.
Our venerable Observer posted this article last year – Is it revealing how this project was supported due to an – “Off-the-Record (?) deal made with Algonquin ??? https://barringtonhillsobserver.com/2015/06/05/recordings-reveal-2006-duda-property-longmeadow-parkway-deal/
Like Anderson II Horse Boarding Amendment, LMP emptying into the terminus at Route 62 is the result of suspicious and covert practices by prior VBH President and his “Save 5 Acres” political team on VBH BOT.
While LMP will divide VBH into North and South segments, Anderson II is a daggar to the very 5-Acre residential zoning which defines VBH. Anderson II paves the way for the first time in VBH’s history unregulated business enterprise in R-1 zoned district anywhere at anytime without VBH government permission, notice or oversight.
In the infinite wisdom of prior VBH ZBA and VBH BOT, they define a “dude ranch” catoring to outsiders from all corners of the globe as an agriculture endeavor under the permitted use section of VBH Code. This is a first in the United States because no other municipality would be as reckless or may I say corrupt in the manner of how such legislation would originate and then be promulgated.
Unfortunately, the majority of VBH residents are either too busy or disengaged to realize this zoning land mine which awaits some. All I can say is just hope you do not get an intrusive commercial dude ranch built next to your home because Anderson II ensures you will have no legal recourse. Yes, as a result of Anderson II, a dude ranch with no FAR requirements or limitation on number of horses boarded operating anywhere in R-1 zoning is in pari delecti (equal footing) with 5-acre residential estate living. This decision to overturn R-1 Zoning was made by a total of 10 people on ZBA and BOT collectively, all of whom coincidentally disciples of former VBH President!
Incredibly, this modification to R-1 zoning in VBH code was not achieved through referendum in plain sight for all of us to see but through secret dealings by radical equestrian fringe who were part of or controlled ZBA and BOT majority members at the time.
As real estate taxes continue to rise and values of homes continue to decline, the pressure of finding ways to make money off open space becomes more attractive all the time.
In order to “Preserve Barrington Hills”, Anderson II must be repealed and repealed now! It is time BOT reinstate former Home Occupation Ordinance relating to boarding of horses which served VBH so well for so many years and adopt responsible zoning legislation for larger scale horse boarding operations in the form of “special use”. Bull Valley, Mettawa, Kane County, McHenry County operates in this fashion as well as almost all other equestrian communities; why not VBH?
We not only owe it to ourselves and our history, but we owe it to the horse as well who stands in time to be exploited by the language of Anderson II by those who choose to put profit over humane treatment of these majestic animals.
It is true that the VB residents whether disengaged, disinterested, or just could care less, if Anderson II is not repealed there will be zoning chaos. It can and should be addressed. At what point will the BOT act with conviction and authority to restore the Home Occupation Ordinance under the special use provision. Just like with the police pension funding, their failure to act has been costly. A year from now, the power of the administration might be contested. So when is it the right time to enact this critical protective measure for all VBH residents. I surely hope it’s sooner rather than later for our zoning.
One of if not the most important issue still hanging over Barrington Hills like a storm cloud is Anderson II ! When will this be addressed! Everyday without movement towards repeal leads our village further down a path towards greater disintegration of property values. I am personally aware of a rental arrangement for a property that wasn’t selling where now a non-owner, non-occupied property is being used to board horses to the general public. Workers come and go to take care of the horses. Is this what we want our village to become?