Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Plum Farm development’ Category

Controversial TIF Request Withdrawn

Posted in 220, 300, Cook, County, Hoffman Estates, Land Disconnection, Land Use, Plum Farm development, Press Release, School Districts, Uncategorized on April 5, 2017| 2 Comments »

 

barrington220

School District 220 issued the following press release this afternoon concerning the proposed TIF for the Plum Farm Development:

“The Board of Education has new developments to share regarding the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District in the Village of Hoffman Estates known as Plum Farms. The controversial development plan called for more than 1,000 residential units within Barrington 220 and District 300’s boundaries, and would have a $120 million adverse impact on our district.

On April 5, the developer informed the Village of Hoffman Estates that it has withdrawn its request for approval of establishment of a TIF district for the Plum Farms development that has been the subject of recent meetings and hearings.

A communication from the Village of Hoffman Estates to Barrington 220 School District and School District 300 states in part, “The Owners request that the Village of Hoffman Estates cease any consideration of, and any further actions regarding, the proposed ‘Route 72 and Route 59 Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Plan and Project.'”

This means that all future meetings to consider the approval of a TIF district will be canceled, including the Joint Review Board meeting scheduled for April 18 and the TIF hearing, tentatively scheduled for May 1, 2017.

The owners of the property at Routes 59 and 72 will continue to pursue annexation of the land into the Village of Hoffman Estates, with a re-zoning based on a new classification for the Village of Hoffman Estates, and future development of the property.

The public hearing to consider the annexation and zoning changes is tentatively scheduled for April 17, 2017 prior to the regular meeting of the Village Trustees.

Districts 220 and 300 will continue to work with the Village of Hoffman Estates and the landowners of the property at Routes 59 and 72 to promote a development that creates a responsible impact on our schools and taxpayers. We remain concerned about the high residential density being considered for this property.

We will communicate any new information to you as it becomes available. Thank you for your continued support during this issue. “

Read Full Post »

Meet the Candidates Part Two : YBH — the Trojan Horsemen

Posted in 2017 Elections, Algonquin Rd, Barrington Hills Farm, Commercial Horse Boarding, Cook, County, Deception, Hoffman Estates, Horse Boarding, IAA, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Kane, Lake, Land Disconnection, Land Use, McHenry, Plum Farm development, Real Estate, Riding Club of Barrington Hills, Sears, South Barrington, Taxes, Uncategorized, Unite Barrington Hills, VBHPD, Village Government, Village President, Your Barrington Hills, Zoning Board on March 30, 2017| 8 Comments »

 

TruthWC

Three candidates running on the “Your Barrington Hills” (YBH) slate are seeking public office for the first time in Barrington Hills. Their names (Louis Iacovelli for president, Paula Jacobsen and Robert Zubak for trustee) are not familiar to most residents, as none of them have had any prior experience or position in our village government. However, their names are definitely well-known in the equestrian community, as they and their spouses have been intimately involved in the Riding Club of Barrington Hills (RCBH). As we’ve published previously, all three of these candidates and Elaine Ramesh, running separately from the slate, have all meticulously avoided nearly any reference to their penchant for all things equestrian during their campaigns.

The question being asked is, did these three choose to run because of their genuine interest in the welfare of all village residents, or did they run at the behest of others who share a hidden agenda?

The YBH candidates, can find no real fault with the record of the current administration, and have had to manufacture issues, frequently grossly misrepresenting facts in their mailers, social media platforms and their newspaper interviews, a technique taken out of the playbook of the former village president, and the Save 5 Acres and SOS campaigns in recent election cycles. Not only are their allegations not based in fact,  their responses to the candidate questionnaires published in two suburban newspapers, are nearly identical, as if penned by the same hand. They all present the same, disingenuous information, either by design to discredit and malign the current administration, or by laziness in researching village documents. Whatever the reason for the deception, none are worthy of candidacy for Village office.

Let’s examine some of the spin coming out of the Riding Club camp:

  • YBH Spin: The new 911 dispatch service is not working as well as the former in-house system?  REALITY: This is not supported by fact. According to the Chief of Police, the outsourced system actually provides better coverage and faster response times.
  • YBH Spin: Police coverage has diminished, thereby endangering residents’ safety. REALITY: This is not supported by fact, as the Village, with a static population, has had the same number of officers in the field for twenty years.
  • YBH Spin: There are no commercial businesses in Barrington Hills, and the village does not collect sales tax? REALITY: This is not supported by fact. There are a few businesses in the village, and annually $120,000 – $130,000 in sales taxes revenue is collected from them, according to Village records.
  • YBH Spin: The Village is being re-branded as embracing small lots? REALITY: This is not supported by fact. As best as we can figure, YBH is claiming this because the village website states “Large properties ranging from one to 10+ acres give residents more freedom to live how they want…” This is nothing more than a statement of fact. And, if Louis, Paula or Bob were actually familiar with the village’s official zoning map, they would know that 1-acre, 2-acre and 3-acre properties currently exist within Barrington Hills and have existed for decades (Burning Oak Trail, Barrington Bourne and Ashbury Lane to name just a few neighborhoods that have lots under 5 acres). These R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts are also referenced in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan.
  • YBH Spin: Open spaces are at risk and must be saved? REALITY: This is not supported by fact. Since the 2013 elections, to date, only 14 permits for single-family home construction have been issued for properties, all on 5 or more acres, with NO applications for subdivisions.
  • YBH Spin: FOIA expenses are out of control? REALITY: This is not supported by fact. Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) expenses are documented to be less than they were prior to 2013, and majority of the current expense can be attributed to three individuals, all of whom support this three-person slate.
  • YBH Spin: The current Administration is not protecting residents from intrusion by development in neighboring communities? REALITY: This is not supported by fact. The main issues raised by the Riding Club slate are Longmeadow Parkway (LMP) and the pending Plum Farm Development in Hoffman Estates, both of which could have been mitigated by the previous administration with proper proactive negotiation. The current administration has acted to the limits of the law in its attempts to discourage these plans. In addition to its resolution against LMP, the McLaughlin administration has opposed and spoken out against the IAA Auto Yard in East Dundee, the Speedway development in Lake Barrington in 2015, and voted against the widening of Route 62 2014-2017. And within the last month, Barrington Hills passed a 20-year border agreement with South Barrington.
  • YBH Spin: The Village Levy has not increased in twelve years? REALITY: This misrepresents the facts. According to published village financial records, the levy under the previous regime was set at $6,565,273 as set by previous administration in each of years 2011-2012-2013. The Village Board, lead by McLaughlin and trustee Colleen Konicek Hannigan LOWERED the levy in each successive year from 2014 through 2016, down to $$5,319,862. This represents a cumulative reduction in the Levy of $1,736,467.

So we ask again: are these poor hapless candidates just dazed and confused, or have these hard-core equestrians been  coached by three village residents who have strong personal reasons to support this slate of Iacovelli, Jacobsen and Zubak, (as well as Elaine Ramesh whose candidacy was the subject of our previous feature)? Their close associates include 1) the vocal large-scale commercial boarding operator who has been involved in on-going litigation with the village for eight years, 2) the chairman of a large undeveloped property located in unincorporated McHenry County, who has been fanning the flames of controversy over repeal of the flawed Anderson II horse boarding ordinance, and 3) of course, the former village president who apparently is desirous of once again imposing his failed agendas upon our village.

We believe that the ultimate goal of all four of these candidates is to reinstate ordinances to permit unbridled, large-scale commercial boarding and unimpeded related commercial equestrian activities to the Village, at the expense of the rights of the rest of us to the peaceful enjoyment of our homes.

Unbridled commercial equestrian activities may be THEIR Barrington Hills, but it’s not OUR Barrington Hills.

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Hoffman Estates TIF hearing to be postponed

Posted in 220, 300, Cook, County, Harper College, Hoffman Estates, Land Disconnection, Land Use, Plum Farm development, Real Estate, School Districts, Uncategorized on March 30, 2017| Leave a Comment »

 PlumFarmAerialThe public hearing scheduled for Monday, April 3, on a controversial tax-increment financing (TIF) district for a proposed 184-acre development at routes 59 and 72 in western Hoffman Estates will be continued at that time to the village board meeting of Monday, May 1.

The next meeting of the joint review board of the taxing bodies potentially affected by such a TIF district is already scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 18, at Hoffman Estates village hall, 1900 Hassell Road.

A public hearing on the village’s potential annexation of the land is scheduled for 7 p.m. Monday, April 17, but also may be continued to a later date.

To read the report in the Daily Herald, click here.

Read Full Post »

Editorial: Listen to agencies that would feel consequences of Hoffman Estates development

Posted in 2017 Elections, 220, 300, Barrington Hills Park District, Cook, County, Hoffman Estates, Land Disconnection, Land Use, News Media, OP/Ed, Plum Farm development, School Districts, Uncategorized on March 25, 2017| 4 Comments »

Daily Herald Editorial Board:  The acronym TIF refers to a conversation-stopping tax strategy that is not easy to understand but can have direct consequences for communities, schools, parks, libraries and taxpayers. In the best of circumstances, it can help a community encourage development in struggling parts of town. In the worst, it can suck resources away from the agencies and institutions people count on.

A proposed 184-acre TIF district in western Hoffman Estates qualifies as the latter, and adds insult to injury by potentially increasing demands on local resources, schools in particular, while simultaneously taking resources away from them.

So, it’s not hard to understand why nearly every affected agency took a stand this week in opposition to providing the incentive to a proposed residential and commercial development near routes 72 and 59. In a pair of votes, members of a joint review board overwhelmingly declared the project ineligible for a TIF designation on land the Hoffman Estates village board is considering annexing.

Most of the review board members had selfish reasons to be wary of the proposal. For up to the next 23 years, it would divert tax money away from them — including, among others, Barrington Unit District 220, Community Unit District 300, the Barrington Area Library, Harper College, Elgin Community College, Barrington Township and the Barrington Hills Park District.

All in the interest of a project that — if successful — would bring businesses and residents to an area already bustling with restaurants, grocers and department stores.

The complete Daily Herald editorial can be read here.

Read Full Post »

Barrington Hills approves new 20 year border agreement with South Barrington

Posted in Cook, County, Hoffman Estates, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Land Disconnection, Land Use, Plum Farm development, South Barrington, Uncategorized, Village Board, Village Government, Village President on March 22, 2017| Leave a Comment »

SouthBarrington

Village of South Barrington

Last night at the Village Board meeting,  the Barrington Hills Board of Trustees voted to approve a 20 year extension of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between us and the Village of South Barrington.  This agreement will renew and replace their prior agreement and will protect South Barrington’s borders to develop, and protect land adjacent to Barrington Hills, while assuring Barrington Hills against annexation or development inside their 5 acre zoned residential village.

Negotiations began in 2016 between the two communities on this new agreement.  The IGA will now be presented to South Barrington’s Village Board for final approval.

The forging of a new agreement is not surprising, as Village Presidents Martin McLaughlin and Paula McCombie (of South Barrington), and their communities’ respective boards have worked well together before, having solving legal land issues between their communities and Sears, which could have cost their taxpayers millions, and could have bankrupted their villages in the process.

The two towns had earlier sought a tri-party border agreement including Hoffman Estates, but Hoffman Estates had declined the overtures. Nonetheless, we are suitably  impressed that the two different communities could come to a long-term agreement at the same time as  development proposals like Plum Farm in Hoffman Estates are occupying local media headlines.

Read Full Post »

Local districts vote 7-1 against Hoffman Estates tax break

Posted in 220, 300, BCFPD, Cook, County, Elgin Community College, FPDCC, Harper College, Hoffman Estates, Land Disconnection, Land Use, Plum Farm development, School Districts, Taxes, Uncategorized on March 22, 2017| Leave a Comment »

The vast majority of taxing bodies potentially affected by a proposed $21 million tax refund for a development in western Hoffman Estates dislike the idea so much they rejected it twice Tuesday.  Members of the joint review board for the tax increment financing district requested by the developer for a 184-acre site at routes 59 and 72 first voted 7-1 against approving the eligibility for such an incentive, then voted 7-1 to actively reject its eligibility.

But even with two such votes against it, the proposal legally receives a 30-day period for the developer to adapt the request before the joint review board meets again at 1:30 p.m. April 18 at Hoffman Estates village hall.  And if the ultimate vote is still against the TIF district, the Hoffman Estates village board can still approve it with a supermajority.

The full text of the Daily Herald can be read here.

Read Full Post »

McLaughlin, McCombie address Hoffman Estates Joint Review Board on Plum Farms TIF

Posted in 220, 300, Cook, County, Elgin Community College, FPDCC, FPDCC, Hoffman Estates, Land Disconnection, Land Use, Plum Farm development, School Districts, Traffic, Uncategorized, Village President on March 21, 2017| Leave a Comment »

PlumFarmAerial Momentum may be shifting against the proposed Plum Farms mixed use development at the northwest corner of Higgins and Route 59 after today’s Village of Hoffman Estates meeting of the Joint Review Board (JRB). The JRB, composed of representatives of taxing bodies and parties of standing, is tasked with hearing and determining if a tax increment financing district (TIF) should be established for the property. If approved, it could mean $22.5 million of incentives for the developers.

The JRB does not have any planning or zoning authority and is limited in scope to making a decision on the TIF qualifications only. JRB members present at the meeting represented Elgin Community College, Barrington Township, School District 220, School District 300, with Cook County attending via telephone.

Also present were Barrington Hills Village President Martin McLaughlin, South Barrington President Paula McCombie and Hoffman Estates Mayor Bill McLeod. In addition, a number of board members from D220, D300, South Barrington, Barrington Hills and Hoffman Estates attended, as did 50+ members of the public. Of note, McLaughlin along McCombie were not invited to the table to be seated nor were they allowed to make any statements, as neither village has legal standing as previously noted due to the disconnection of the land in 2010.

The developer’s attorney made a presentation describing why they believe the project fits the conditions to qualify as a TIF. Attorneys for D200 and D300 disagreed and said that it does not apply by not fulfilling the criteria established with regard to agricultural land, vacant land and chronic flooding.

The definition of vacant land for a TIF is land that has not been used for commercial or agricultural purposes in prior years, or land divided into 3 or more parcels that could be deemed as subdivided.

Both sides differed on if the land had been divided, over the amount of agricultural usage and if there is chronic flooding of the property. The issue of a gas pipeline traversing the property which would restrict further residential development was also raised.

The property needs to be subdivided into three lots if they want their application to be strengthened, but that hasn’t happened yet. The subdivision application was submitted in October, but no decision has been made yet, and this has to occur before TIF can be considered.

The discussion dissolved into a “he said, she said” exchange.  And, obviously these matters will likely be taken up in court, as usual, by overpaid attorneys, with the taxpayers on the hook no matter the eventual outcome.

But President McLaughlin was given the opportunity to speak on behalf of Barrington Hills and entered his opposition based upon the offer from Hoffman Estates of $22.5 million, as did South Barrington’s McCombie. Trustee Fritz Gohl and candidate Bob Zubak attended but chose not to speak.  A representative of a D220 taxpayers’ group also spoke.

The Joint Review Board voted on two different motions on the TIF, with the bottom line being that the majority of the board disapproved of the TIF.

There will be no business on this matter until 30 days pass. The next meeting is scheduled for April 18th.

Read Full Post »

McLaughlin and D220 join to oppose Hoffman Estates housing development/TIF district

Posted in 2017 Elections, 220, 300, Cook, Hoffman Estates, Land Use, Plum Farm development, Politics, School Districts, Taxes, Uncategorized, Unite Barrington Hills, Your Barrington Hills on March 16, 2017| Leave a Comment »

(Several readers provided us with their observations after attending Wednesday night’s Hoffman Estates Village Meeting, and a later gathering of neighbors who heard from Martin McLaughlin.)

Last night, a group of concerned D220 & D300 taxpayers, led by elected officials Barrington Hills Village President Martin McLaughlin, District 220 School Board President Brian Battle and D220 Board Member Angela Wilcox, assembled at the Hoffman Estates Village Hall to attend the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing on the proposed Plum Farms development and to speak on behalf of their constituents. However, shortly after they arrived, they learned that the Plum Farms hearing had been removed from the Agenda and deferred until April 5th.

Before the meeting start, we understand that McLaughlin, Battle and Wilcox assembled with the residents in attendance to strategize opposition to the mixed-use project that could introduce upwards of 500-800 new students to the two school districts. When notified that the Hoffman Estates commission would not be discussing the Plum Farms development at all, and would not be accepting any public comments before or after their regular agenda items, President McLaughlin entered his prepared comments on behalf of the residents of Barrington Hills to the Clerk. Those remarks have also been obtained by the Observer and you can read his comments here.   We will be interested to see if his comments in fact do make it into the Official Record.

(When it was apparent that there would be no opportunity for public input, McLaughlin departed to discuss updates from Springfield on the status of LMP, and also to discuss the Plum Farms (Iatarola) development with dozens of concerned constituents at a private village residence.)

After the Planning Meeting started, a number of Barrington Hills residents gathered outside the room. Current candidate for D220 School Board Mike Shackleton was in attendance, as were Louis Iacovelli and Paula Jacobsen, representing the Riding Club slate from “Your Barrington Hills” (YBH). D220 Board President Battle proceeded to describe in detail the scope of the proposed development and its projected negative impact on both D300 & D220 taxpayers. Meanwhile, the YBH candidates tried to insist that VBH won’t defend its residents, but offered no solutions of their own.

Another reader who attended the subsequent McLaughlin meeting tells us that some progress is being made on slowing down construction of  Longmeadow Parkway. State Senator Pamela Althoff, who is the sponsor of SB1518, is not accepting amendments to that “quick take” legislation, which means that the Autumn Trail properties cannot be added to the current bill. However, there is a “shell bill”’ (which is currently empty) which can be filled in later to include Autumn Trail for “quick-take”. McLaughlin, working in coordination with several trustees, affected Autumn Trail residents and other concerned property-owners have already filed over 150 witness slips in opposition to the shell bill, known as SB1066.

We thank our readers for their contributions to this segment, and we will continue keep you informed of any new developments.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts