Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Land Disconnection’ Category

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 »

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 »

UniteBH__Logo Press Release:  Unite Barrington Hills candidates, Martin McLaughlin and Colleen Konicek Hannigan, oppose the burdening of Barrington Hills’ taxpayers with the proposed Hoffman Estates development at Routes 59 and 72 (now outside the Barrington Hills’ border due to 2010 deannexation) which will place more students into CUSD 220 and 300.

A meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 15, at 7:00 PM at the Hoffman Estates Municipal Center, 1900 Hassell Road, Hoffman Estates.  This appears to be the only date scheduled for public comment and the candidates encourage residents to attend and be heard.

The full text of today’s press release can be read on the unitebh.com Facebook page.

 

 

Read Full Post »

As 2016 comes to a close, we asked Northwest suburban mayors to to look back on something their community accomplished in the past year and look ahead at something they hope to accomplish in 2017. Here are their replies, in some cases edited for length.

martyMartin J. McLaughlin, Barrington Hills

In 2016, Barrington Hills reduced the tax levy, while increasing the village’s cash reserves, and accomplishing more roadway improvements per year than had been done in the prior 10 years. In addition, the village budget has been reduced from $8.4 million in 2013 to $7.5 million forecast for 2017, with village spending again projected to be below what was budgeted, as operational efficiencies continue to benefit our residents.

Our village finalized the construction of our largest capital project in village history — the former Cuba Road Bridge, which we have named Veterans Crossing Bridge to honor those men and women in uniform who protect our freedoms.

In 2017, we will be communicating with owners of large parcels of land bordering our community in an attempt to reclaim rural open space acreage lost under the prior administration. We will be rolling out a new village website which will make it easier for residents to get the necessary information, records and permits required directly from our site, as well as providing a Village Lifestyle section where current and future residents can be introduced to all of the events, organizations, clubs, and freedoms that rural open space living with limited government oversight affords in Barrington Hills.

Read the full report from the Daily Herald here.

Read Full Post »

The Village has posted audio recordings from the July 18th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.  The meeting was continued until August 1st due to the excessive crowd that attended, however there are about ten minutes of recordings that are available for review.

Unfortunately, the recordings begin after the chair gaveled the meeting to order.  However, those in attendance were allowed to make public comment only as it related to the continuance of the meeting, not the agenda for that night, and six people spoke.

The first speaker complained that “A lot of people went to a great deal of inconvenience to come here tonight.  Something [the meeting] was noticed on very short notice, contrary to the agenda that you had that this board decided in June.”

We’re not sure what the speaker meant by “noticed,” but we saw the agenda and document packet including the petition posted to the Village website at least two weeks in advance of the meeting.  Additionally, it was noticed in the Daily Herald classified ads per the Open Meetings Act.

RJE ButtonsHis comments can be heard here, and we’re told he was seen handing out spiffy buttons to some in the crowd (inset left) prior to the meeting.  It seems odd that the speaker complained he had such short notice, yet he managed to have buttons produced in time for the meeting. 

The second speaker acknowledged the board’s decision for continuing the meeting, but expressed his disappointment, since he had suggested a larger venue for the hearing be chosen, as can be heard here.

Speaker number three questioned why proceeding with the meeting would violate the Open Meetings Act.  Mary Dickson, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals answered stating:

The Illinois Open Meetings Act requires that for a public body to hold a meeting, among the other requirements, the meeting must be held so that everyone who seeks to participate, to hear, to witness, can do so comfortably  We have an overflow crowd in the, out in the hallway, many of whom are standing.  I believe that this is by interpretation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act would begin to run afoul of the Act, and it is my legal recommendation that to comply with the Act we continue the meeting so that we have a venue large enough and comfortable enough for everyone to participate.”

The full question and answer recording can be heard here.

Speaker five has become a familiar voice in recent public meetings, and it would seem that his only purpose was to point out that the attorney representing the petitioner for commercial horse boarding code amendments also represented the Fritz Duda Company some years ago in their legal battle over 602 acres that was in Barrington Hills at that time. 

That tract of land has been, and is now, in unincorporated in McHenry County ever since the Village lost the case against the petitioner’s attorney, so the speaker’s remarks (heard here) were likely ill-advised since the attorney appears to be qualified when it comes to matters of land use and zoning.

Once public comment concluded, a motion to continue the meeting was made, and the vote was not unanimous.  Board members voted 5 to 2 to continue the meeting until August 1st as can be heard here.   

To access the menu of edited recordings by agenda topic from this abbreviated meeting, click here.

Read Full Post »

Plum Farm

Hoffman Estates officials voted 4-2 Monday to move forward with preparations for a possible tax incentive for a largely residential development on 185 acres at the northwest corner of routes 59 and 72 that also would include some businesses near the intersection itself.

The project would include owner-occupied single-family homes, town houses and coach houses on 145 acres, with an 11.5-acre site to be made up of seven luxury apartment buildings totaling 240 units and 13 rental row house or town house units.

The 145 acres specified for single-family homes were once in Barrington Hills but disconnected through a lawsuit filed a dozen years ago.

Read more here.

Related article: Barrington Hills loses bid to block disconnection of land

Read Full Post »

Audio recordings from the January 25th regular monthly meeting of the Village Board have been posted to the Village website.  President Pro-Tem Colleen Konicek Hannigan chaired most of the two-hour meeting which, for the second month in a row, had no comments from the public.

Trustee Bryan Croll’s finance report was the longest of those covered, and his item regarding pension obligation bonds was deferred until later in the meeting so that President McLaughlin could be present for the discussion.

During the Bills For Approval report, Trustee Gohl had a list of rather obscure questions on certain invoices, which Village Clerk Anna Paul addressed quite well.  At one point, he asked even the police chief for an explanation of a bill related to a zoning inspection.

We must compliment Ms. Paul, since she seemed to be extremely prepared to provide answers regarding Bills For Approval, as well as detailed background for most other items on the agenda that evening.  This is a refreshing change since Bob Kosin, Village Administrator, seems to always need to be coaxed so speak up on such matters.

Trustee Croll also reviewed expenses for 2015, compared to those of the prior fiscal year, and mentioned reductions in many areas.  It should be noted that many of these cost reductions can be attributed to measures taken by the Board prior to his election, but his summary can be heard here.

Click to enlarge

Click on image to enlarge

During the Attorney’s Report, it was learned that Barrington District 220 is seeking amendments to zoning restrictions set forth in an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) from 2004 for their recently acquired property in Barrington Hills, between Hart and Old Hart Roads (a map can be viewed here).  This, despite the fact that the district was aware of the zoning limits when they acquired the property, and they have no near-term plans for its use.

According to Village Attorney Patrick Bond’s report, the district wishes to have the ability to use the property for, “school purposes and elementary and high school use, related facilities. Elementary, middle and high school parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, athletic facilities, school related parking for school uses (not to include the storage of busses, trucks, maintenance vehicles or commercial vehicles) and administrative offices.”

Bond went on to say that such changes to the IGA would require changes to our existing Village Code, and that the district asked if Barrington Hills would consider the annexation of the property into the Village of Barrington.  As one might expect, our board members were not receptive to any changes to the IGA without any input first from adjacent property owners on Old Hart Road.

The link to the full District 220 land use discussion recording can be accessed here.

President McLaughlin joined the meeting shortly after the attorney’s report, and discussion began on the deferred topic of the Police Pension Obligation Bond (PPOB) from the finance section of the meeting. 

(It should be noted that last year the PPOB initiative was all but dismissed as an option, due to rising interest rates, but Trustee Croll had requested it be included on the January agenda so that he could make a statement on the matter.)

Croll began the discussion by reading a long prepared statement (heard here) that included the word “I” dozens of times, thus underscoring the fact he is the only member of the Finance Committee he was reporting on.  Given the considerable number of financial professionals we have living in the Village, perhaps this committee should be expanded to three members in the future in order to provide discussion and consensus. 

Additionally, his statement included many references to detailed financials, and was somewhat difficult to follow without a copy, which was not provided to his fellow board members for review in advance, nor even distributed before he read it at the meeting.

When, at one point during his discourse, President McLaughlin courteously asked him to repeat a statement, Croll indignantly retorted, “It can wait.”  Thinking better of it, Croll repeated the sentence.  When he was finished, McLaughlin thanked Croll for his accommodation, explaining he didn’t have a copy of the report to follow along with, to which Croll responded, “You can take notes.”

McLaughlin then provided a very candid perspective on the missed opportunity for residents to fully fund pensions for our police officers over two years ago at extremely favorable bond rates, as can be heard here.  The Board then unanimously voted down pursuing bonds to fund the police pension. 

Later, during the administration report, McLaughlin reviewed some of the recent activities of other taxing bodies, including the Barrington Countryside Fire Protection District which is looking at switching its 911 dispatch services and possibly considering a third fire station.  McLaughlin encouraged residents to get involved in these issues, or at least stay informed on developments, as can be heard here.

To access the full menu of edited recordings by topic from the entire meeting, click here.

Read Full Post »

The Village has recently posted recordings from the November 19th meeting of the Board of Trustees. 

The entire public meeting lasted just under three and a half hours.  Those who attended the meeting or listen to the entire recordings will likely recognize the reason for the unnecessarily drawn-out discussions.

Six residents made public comments at the beginning of the meeting, with five of them speaking their minds on the topic of the Police Pension Obligation Bond that was on the agenda.  Unfortunately, they, and others in attendance, were in for an initial disappointment.

When the bond topic did come up on the agenda during Trustee Bryan Croll’s finance report, he refused to make a motion to consider it, stating he had no new information as can be heard here.  That seemed rather arrogant on Croll’s part considering other members of the board, including two who are full-time financial fund managers, have also been researching the topic and might have had information to add to the discussion. 

The Village Attorney was then asked if any member of the Board of Trustees could move for discussion of a topic, and not solely the Trustee assigned to the Finance Committee.  Attorney Mary Dickson began reviewing our codes, however it appears from the recordings, residents attending the meeting had already departed by the time a decision was made later during the evening. 

When it was confirmed that any board member could make the motion, Croll then decided he would make it after all, as can be heard here.

Forty-five minutes of discussion by the Trustees then followed, with Croll stating a number of times he had not been prepared to discuss the matter that evening, despite the fact that the issue has been before both the Finance Committee and the Board of Trustees for months.  Ultimately, yet another motion to table consideration of the issue was approved.

Unfortunately, the matter may be moot at this point since interest rates have inched up since the concept was first floated before the board nearly two years ago. 

Considering that the Federal Reserve Chairman is likely to announce an interest rate hike soon, this proposition is not nearly as financially beneficial as it once was, and it is a shame some board members dragged this out, due to what seems like political reasons  and foregoing the financial interests of the taxpayers who voted for them.

Later in the meeting, there were more productive discussions, and in most cases, votes were taken to decide various issues.

For example, by a unanimous vote, the Village Code which had required residents to purchase and display vehicle stickers was abolished.  That  discussion and vote can be heard here.  Also repealed was the very old code language requiring each homeowner to have landline telephone services. 

Though many readers may be scratching their heads over this one, landline service was actually required by the Village by code up until this vote.  In fact, in order to obtain an occupancy permit for a newly constructed home, proof of a landline telephone account was required.  That discussion and vote can be heard here.

Trustees also approved a new agreement with our unionized police force, which brings added benefits to the Village, as well as to sworn officers.  Chief Semelsberger seemed pleased with the new agreement, as can be heard here

Semelsberger also reported his satisfaction with the consolidation of 911 services to QuadCom which occurred over a month ago.  He can be heard expressing his experiences thus far by clicking here.

It was reported during the administration portion of the meeting that the Village of Barrington has expressed an interest in annexing the property recently purchased by District 220 off Hart Road which is currently located in Barrington Hills (Lot 5 as depicted in a map seen here).  We have some reservations on this matter, as do some of our Trustees it would seem, and the link to that discussion can be accessed here.

To access the menu of the complete recordings from the meeting, click here.

Read Full Post »

longMeadowBridgeThe Village has released recordings from the May 27th Village Board meeting.  While we have not had the opportunity to review all of the recordings, we have reviewed those related to the Longmeadow Parkway project.

Much of the discussion centered on the current, and somewhat heated, opposition to the Longmeadow Parkway project, and the position of the Village Board back in 2006 when they approved the “Resolution Supporting A Bridge Study Corridor and Project in Dundee Township for Construction of the Longmeadow Parkway (Bolz Road) Bridge, and Route 62 Traffic Corridor Study from Route 59 to Route 31.”  A copy of that resolution can be viewed here.

Twelve residents took the opportunity to make public comments, and many of those related to the Village’s current position regarding Longmeadow Parkway, and what measures might be taken to prevent the project from feeding four lanes of traffic into the Village of Barrington Hills on Algonquin Road.  One commenter stated the following:

“I know a lot of people who supported the resolution back in 2006 were doing so because they thought it was a deal they had to make to save the Duda property.  Be that as it may, the Duda property is sold.  It is safe.  It is no longer a consideration. So we no longer have to worry about are we giving up, you know, north of Spring Creek in return for this, so I don’t think it’s a needed thing anymore as far as that goes.”

Her full comments can be heard here.

Later in the meeting, during the Board’s discussion of the “Longmeadow Parkway Phase II Review,” Trustee Fritz Gohl seemed to corroborate the speaker’s comments when he stated:

“Well, ah, back up a little bit, eh, let you know where I was in ’06, ah, I voted yes for this [Resolution].  The reason why I voted yes for this is because we were doing an agreement with Algonquin.  Algonquin wanted this [Longmeadow Parkway] bridge, and we basically went around, and my opinion at the time why I voted this way was that we were agreeing with Algonquin ‘cause Algonquin was helping us with the Duda situation, which somebody brought up earlier.”

Trustee Gohl’s remarks, followed by some very revealing dialog that ensued, can be heard here.

Minutes from the March 27, 2006, Village Board meeting when the Longmeadow Resolution was approved reflect no discussion of any “agreement” with Algonquin “helping us” in return for supporting Longmeadow Parkway.  Furthermore, according to the minutes, Trustee Gohl did not vote in favor of the resolution, and the Village President at that time suggested, “an ad hoc committee of residents may be formed in the future regarding this project.”  No such committee was ever formed according to records.

A copy of the minutes from that meeting can be viewed here.

While it is unknown who on the Village Board at that time was actually aware of the undocumented agreement with Algonquin (presumably not to annex the Duda property), it is clearly evident that the public was not made aware of it, and now, we as residents must pay the price again, as we have been for other “legacy” matters.

To access the menu of edited audio recordings from the meeting, click here.

Read Full Post »

Too Many SignsThere are too many signs in Barrington Hills.  Drive down most roads, and it will be obvious.  Too many election signs.  One next to the other and then another and another.  What’s worse than that?  There are too many “for sale” signs.  They signal a broad sense of dissatisfaction and a desire to get out.  This may or may not be true, but the signs say to the world and to us that we are in trouble.

The truth is that it has become far too noisy in Barrington Hills.  The noise comes not from the sounds of traffic or congestion but from one group of voices trying to drown out the other.  And we are all to blame, including this publication.

There are too many blogs and political parties.  Their names are an allegory for something that has been lost or diminished:  “Save Horse Boarding in Barrington Hills,” “Don’t Change Barrington Hills,” “Save Open Space,” and “Preserve Barrington Hills.”  But what have we really lost?

There have been too many lawsuits:  Iatarola, Duda, Sears, LeCompte 1, LeCompte 2, and now a fresh lawsuit challenging the Village’s handling of its own horse boarding laws.  These lawsuits are also a sign that we have lost control of our problems and now must ask faraway judges, strangers to our Village, to decide what we were unable to resolve ourselves.

We talk too much about lawyers and legal fees and government investigations.  We have had too many controversies:  cell phone towers; exterior lighting (remember the HALO signs?); horse boarding; bike lanes; disconnection; 911.  The list and the signs go on and on.

There have been too many headlines portraying our small Village as the epicenter of wealthy-folks’ petulant controversies:  “Horse feud splitting Barrington Hills”; “Residents, cyclists feud over Barrington Hills roads”; “AG’s office reviews ex-mayor’s Barrington Hills appointments”; “Appellate court sides with Barrington Hills police officers.”

Of course we would be remiss or (worse) hypocritical if we did not recognize that these pages too, within the Barrington Hills Observer, have added to the “noise.”  If only by necessity, we have editorialized and perhaps sometimes heightened the public debate on controversial local political topics and public figures.

We spend too much money on trustee campaigns; we stuff mailboxes with too many mailers; there are too many political coffees (and too few social ones); and too many articles about all of them.  And, while we could never be critical of public participation in government, the reality is that our Village Board meetings are too well attended because they are filled with so much drama.  We’ve become a rival to reality television, including the expletives.

Now back to the question.  What have we lost?  The answer is that we have lost peace and a commitment to the public and private service of our neighbors.  We have taken the noise to a level that cannot be sustained and it is time to back down.  If not, what’s next?  More signs.  More lawsuits.  More lawyers and lawyer fees.  More mailers.  And, regrettably and not coincidentally, more “for sale” signs.  We have written before on the need to restore peace to Barrington Hills, (Read “Why Barrington Hills must change”). It is equally or more true today.

On April 7th, next Tuesday, we will have an opportunity as a Village to restore peace to Barrington Hills at the ballot box and, one can only hope, to usher in a new era of public and private service of our neighbors.  Our roads and budgets and zoning laws need repair.  For those jobs we need trustees who will be devoted to public service and unity.   We need residents who possess the skills needed to fix our broken roads, budgets and zoning laws, not noisemakers.

The Observer will publish its endorsements on Monday.  Suffice it to say we will not be endorsing the candidates whose names have been synonymous with the noise that now covers the Village like a blanket.

It is time to reflect and to reduce the “signs” of trouble in our Village.

–     The Observer

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »