January’s public hearing on the 40-acre development up on Butterfield attracted a sometimes reasoned but also fiery rejection to the idea. The authorities went away ruffled and straightening their ties. The public filed out, quietly fuming, and baffled.
Bafflement prevailed because the question was asked how we ever came to this point: a 148-unit, high density housing development on the site of a recent clear-cut of over 2,000 60-year-old trees. The flames came from a few who castigated the developers and planners alike for taking advantage of the Village rules and a complacent, uninformed and trusting public.
So what happened?
The ground started to move in 2009 when the Archdiocese of Chicago signaled to the Village that they wanted to develop 97 acres of open land at the east end of St.Mary’s Lake. The Village looked at its Comprehensive Plan map and noted the parcel was drawn and zoned as Institutional Building, (IB).
Every smart village government has a Plan. This blueprint provides guidance to control against undesirable development. Our Plan had reserved the 97 acres for church buildings.
The Church however saw housing: affordable housing for Libertyville’s younger families. In a deftly cadenced move that any professional card shark would have applauded, the Church suggested to only develop the northern section, about 33 acres nearest Butterfield Road. South of that, another 7 acres of woods would be “untouched” and the bottom 57 acres would be left institutional. They asked that the 33 acres be redrawn as Residential.
Following two meetings and a lot of questions about Planned Development housing, traffic volumes, safety, isolation, tree preservation, housing affordability, open space and the wisdom of an unscheduled, redrawing of the Plan to suit the Church, they voted. The Plan Commission went 5/2 in favor, April 2010. The Village Trustees gave it a green light too. 33 acres were redrawn on the Plan map as Residential, and 7 acres left as Institutional.
However, the entire 97 acres are still today zoned Institutional Building. While the Plan gives guidance, it’s the zoning which is law.
Only years later did the Church find a developer who would be happy to buy the land if they could build nearly 200 homes on the 33 acres, and take the 7 acres of woods south of the development site as well.
The developer quickly began to design the site, and eventually reduced the residential count to 148 single family dwellings, 3 & 4 bedrooms, 2,000-2,900 square foot, two-story units on tiny, fenced lots. The designs didn’t comply with residential zone codes, but because they are a Planned Development, they got a pass.
Meanwhile the soft sell on the development commenced as multiple sets of beautiful drawings were dropped off at the Plan Commission office, with the Village Trustees, the engineering and public works departments, as well as the police, fire and the many other committees who need to vet the process.
Unfortunately, the public didn’t get wind of the proposal until a registered letter was sent to a few souls who lived within 250 feet of the site, net of any roads. A public hearing in September hosted a small crowd of residents who, scratching their heads, asked what the heck was going on.
Even then, the public didn’t fully understand what was about to happen.
The Church, now very much on a roll, authorized the developer to get Village permission to remove 2,500 trees on the property. After considerable expense and due diligence, the Village Trustees approved the logging on October 10. By Thanksgiving, the trees were gone, authorized with a site development permit.
Yet no approval had come from the Village to re-zone, let alone develop the site.
The next Plan Commission meeting was postponed until January 9. With time to study the proposal, it became clear to many that the development was off color.
Many emotional, esthetic issues entangle this debate, but high above them is the reality of traffic congestion, child safety, school crowding and Butler Lake pollution.
In addition to these challenges, the developer is attempting to sell very expensive homes to buyers who will have tenuous and dangerous access to and from their neighborhood. The stark reality is that there is no convenient way to turn into the site, and nightmarish opportunities to exit. A deal killer for the rational homeowner.
The Church has been suspected perhaps of disconnecting the site from Libertyville if we kibosh the deal. Rumors run rampant that the land will host high rises, fast food stores and muffler shops if we were to lose the land to the neighboring village.
The probability of that happening is remote because none of the developer’s challenges go away. In fact they are compounded by very expensive infrastructure needs and delays statuted in Illinois law.
So we now find the issue coming to a head with a February 27 vote:
- To re-draw the Plan map to include the 7 wooded acres as Residential;
- To re-zone all 40 acres from Institutional to Residential;
- To get a plat of the subdivision;
- To grant a special use permit to build a Planned Development;
- To develop a concept for the Planned Development.
The Village Trustees painted themselves into a corner back in 2010, but have had to wait 7 years for the floor to dry. Whether they can find a solution to the conundrum is a toss-up.
Rest assured that the public is now paying attention.
2 thoughts on “Trouble In The Back Forty: How We Got To Here”
I’ve talked to a few people who’ve raised in some form the question, “what’s wrong with a new development?”
Although I could point them to your presentation, to do so would give in to their entirely missing the point. It is a red herring. The question isn’t ‘what’s wrong?’, demanding an answer from me. The question is ‘what’s right?’, and that demands and answer from the party seeking permission to break/change the rules and violate the Village Plan solely for its own benefit.
The Village owes its residents a much better answer than “because we can”. This development delivers no measurable benefits whatsoever to the town’s residents (a rounding error potential benefit for the very few of us operating a local business). Whether *this* school has classroom space, or *that* lake will be polluted, or *this* road provides safe access is entirely irrelevant. The onus is not on us to answer such questions.
The owner/developer is the party requesting the zoning change and therefore is the party that must persuade us that the benefits outweigh the costs, and they have prima facie done nothing remotely of the sort. In fact, it appears they simply hoped to glad-hand their way through the Village board without having to make a case at all. That hundreds of residents had to stick their noses in the door of such meetings to make sure their interests were being considered is an indictment of our representative government.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John, you are entirely correct. It has been a good case of mental jiu jitsu to get us on the defensive. I strongly request that you copy and paste your observation above onto the Facebook sites, “Libertyville Bulletin Board”, and “Preserve Libertyville Property Rights”. I hope you will, as there are around 1500 members who will read your opinion, and it is right on point.