Here is the information from the 2030 Plan web site:
“A draft of the Land Use section of the 2030 Plan was reviewed by the RPC at its September 24 meeting. As a result of that review, a final draft version has been produced. This version, along with the Future Land Use map, will be the subject of the public Open House meetings Friday, October 9 from 1 pm - 5 pm and Saturday, October 10 from 9 am - 2 pm at the McHenry County Adminstration Building, 667 Ware Rd, Woodstock. The meetings will have an open-house format. Participants may arrive at any time and should anticipate spending one to one-and-a-half hours at the meeting.
The Land Use section and two maps are available for download here:
(Ed. note: I don't have the links here. Go to: www.mchenrycounty2030plan.com, click in the middle of the opening page, and you will find links to the documents. Paper copies may be available by calling the Planning and Zoning Department at the County, 815-334-4560.)
Comments on the Land Use section and map drafts will be accepted at the Open House. They can also be submitted via email to 2030plan@co.mchenry.il.us or in writing to McHenry County 2030 Plan, Department of Planning and Development, McHenry County Government Center, 2200 North Seminary Avenue, Woodstock, IL 60098. All comments must be received by 4:30 PM, Friday, October 16, 2009".
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PLAN?
MCHENRY COUNTY 2030 LAND USE PLAN:
WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT?
The McHenry County 2030 Land Use Plan process is nearing completion. The plan and the plan map are both posted at www.mchenrycounty2030plan.com. The chapter on Land Use that explains the map will also be available on line by the time you read this.
Someone asked me, “What’s wrong with the plan?”
It starts out based on a wrong premise – an influx of 220,000 more people in the next 20 years. The Plan Commission statement is that “These people are coming, we have to make room”. That is faulty logic. Population growth should be a function of the plan not the reverse. Population growth only occurs if the infrastructure and zoning permit it. The plan commissioners should determine the optimum population based on the necessary farmland and water preservation necessary for the residents already here. Countries with fastest growing populations all have lower standards of living than countries with slow or no growth in population. Population growth is incompatible with environmental preservation. A too-high projection will result in setting aside more farmland than necessary for development, encourage sprawl and compromise our standard of living.
The plan is based on an outdated development model that encourages new growth to keep extending outward into open land and farmland. With a world-wide food shortage looming in the next twenty years and people in third world countries already dying from lack of clean drinking water, we must stop wasting our life-giving resources. Although the planners give lip service to the term “compact, contiguous development”, “in and around municipalities” a quick look at the map will show large blocks set aside for Office/Industrial, Estate, and Residential Development in unincorporated areas not adjacent to municipalities.
The dreaded map in the Economic Development chapter earlier draft, that showed half the land west of 47 set aside for gravel, retail and industrial has been removed. But it leaves behind the text that encourages those massive areas.
The plan promotes Conservation Design Development (CDD). The strength of CDD is that it operates to preserve sensitive lands that would otherwise be lost to pavement, short-grass lawns and rooftops, but it still puts development in the middle of the farmland. Somehow the County is under the misconception that CDD makes it all right to spot zone. It isn’t. In spite of all the good things it accomplishes, CDD is another form of dense development that belongs in municipalities.
No Land Use Plan should require existing residents to subsidize future residents, which is exactly what happens because spot zoning increases the need to expand infrastructure and services, increases taxes for existing residents.
The plan conflicts internally with itself. Chapters on Water Resources, Open Space and Agriculture are in conflict with Chapters on County Character (Housing Densities). Economic Development, and Infrastructure. One plan member made it clear, “.We are only preserving farmland until it is needed for something else”.
Preserving farmland does double duty as preserving water recharge. A 2006 report commissioned by the county predicted water shortages in several townships by 2030 and acknowledged that water shortages already exist in Algonquin Township. The use of the Sensitive Area Recharge Areas (SARA) study must be integral to land use planning. Although the Water Resources Chapter of the plan supports this idea, acceptance by county and municipal developers alike is lagging far behind. In one Plan Commission meeting a municipal official discussing future plans for a Civic Center development, noted that they were going ahead with plans in spite of a sensitive recharge area on the property.
And finally, the plan process is being driven by a controlling members’ voting bloc on the commission that has hijacked the process, developed this vision behind the scenes and manipulated the voting in many cases to push through their agenda. Each member on the bloc earns his living from development in some way. The plan does not represent the wishes of the county residents generally, much less the residents of District 6, the only District really affected by this plan.
The county cannot plan for land that is already in municipalities, it can only plan for unincorporated land, which is primarily in District 6. Of the 24 County Board members who will vote on this plan, only 4 represent unincorporated county residents in District 6. The other 20 represent municipalities primarily on the east side of the county that are rapidly outgrowing their resources due to poor planning.
Public viewing of the Land Use Map for this 2030 Plan is on Friday, October 9, from 1-6 pm and Saturday, October 10, from 9am -12 pm. Not a lot of time and it’s a holiday weekend. Written public comment can be tendered by Oct. 16, to the Planning and Development office of the County, on Ware Rd. There will be one or two more meetings of the Plan Commission to review the comments and make “appropriate” changes, and then the Plan goes to the P&D Committee for a final review before approval by the County Board.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT?
The McHenry County 2030 Land Use Plan process is nearing completion. The plan and the plan map are both posted at www.mchenrycounty2030plan.com. The chapter on Land Use that explains the map will also be available on line by the time you read this.
Someone asked me, “What’s wrong with the plan?”
It starts out based on a wrong premise – an influx of 220,000 more people in the next 20 years. The Plan Commission statement is that “These people are coming, we have to make room”. That is faulty logic. Population growth should be a function of the plan not the reverse. Population growth only occurs if the infrastructure and zoning permit it. The plan commissioners should determine the optimum population based on the necessary farmland and water preservation necessary for the residents already here. Countries with fastest growing populations all have lower standards of living than countries with slow or no growth in population. Population growth is incompatible with environmental preservation. A too-high projection will result in setting aside more farmland than necessary for development, encourage sprawl and compromise our standard of living.
The plan is based on an outdated development model that encourages new growth to keep extending outward into open land and farmland. With a world-wide food shortage looming in the next twenty years and people in third world countries already dying from lack of clean drinking water, we must stop wasting our life-giving resources. Although the planners give lip service to the term “compact, contiguous development”, “in and around municipalities” a quick look at the map will show large blocks set aside for Office/Industrial, Estate, and Residential Development in unincorporated areas not adjacent to municipalities.
The dreaded map in the Economic Development chapter earlier draft, that showed half the land west of 47 set aside for gravel, retail and industrial has been removed. But it leaves behind the text that encourages those massive areas.
The plan promotes Conservation Design Development (CDD). The strength of CDD is that it operates to preserve sensitive lands that would otherwise be lost to pavement, short-grass lawns and rooftops, but it still puts development in the middle of the farmland. Somehow the County is under the misconception that CDD makes it all right to spot zone. It isn’t. In spite of all the good things it accomplishes, CDD is another form of dense development that belongs in municipalities.
No Land Use Plan should require existing residents to subsidize future residents, which is exactly what happens because spot zoning increases the need to expand infrastructure and services, increases taxes for existing residents.
The plan conflicts internally with itself. Chapters on Water Resources, Open Space and Agriculture are in conflict with Chapters on County Character (Housing Densities). Economic Development, and Infrastructure. One plan member made it clear, “.We are only preserving farmland until it is needed for something else”.
Preserving farmland does double duty as preserving water recharge. A 2006 report commissioned by the county predicted water shortages in several townships by 2030 and acknowledged that water shortages already exist in Algonquin Township. The use of the Sensitive Area Recharge Areas (SARA) study must be integral to land use planning. Although the Water Resources Chapter of the plan supports this idea, acceptance by county and municipal developers alike is lagging far behind. In one Plan Commission meeting a municipal official discussing future plans for a Civic Center development, noted that they were going ahead with plans in spite of a sensitive recharge area on the property.
And finally, the plan process is being driven by a controlling members’ voting bloc on the commission that has hijacked the process, developed this vision behind the scenes and manipulated the voting in many cases to push through their agenda. Each member on the bloc earns his living from development in some way. The plan does not represent the wishes of the county residents generally, much less the residents of District 6, the only District really affected by this plan.
The county cannot plan for land that is already in municipalities, it can only plan for unincorporated land, which is primarily in District 6. Of the 24 County Board members who will vote on this plan, only 4 represent unincorporated county residents in District 6. The other 20 represent municipalities primarily on the east side of the county that are rapidly outgrowing their resources due to poor planning.
Public viewing of the Land Use Map for this 2030 Plan is on Friday, October 9, from 1-6 pm and Saturday, October 10, from 9am -12 pm. Not a lot of time and it’s a holiday weekend. Written public comment can be tendered by Oct. 16, to the Planning and Development office of the County, on Ware Rd. There will be one or two more meetings of the Plan Commission to review the comments and make “appropriate” changes, and then the Plan goes to the P&D Committee for a final review before approval by the County Board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
