Master plan draws heat from residents

The presence of Lake County government in Libertyville predates the Civil War when a poor farm was built near Winchester Road and Milwaukee Avenue.

Livestock and cows were purchased, and workers hired by the county helped needy residents till the land. Cheese was produced and vegetables raised as part of the operation, an early example of constituent service.

Over time, the operation evolved to become the Winchester House nursing home. Eventually, offices, garages and other facilities for public works, transportation and the sheriff’s office were added as part of a government campus on what is still known as the County Farm property.

But there is plenty of open land left. And though it may take years, what happens next has raised concerns among neighboring residents, who question several aspects of a proposed 20-year master plan.

The county says it has worked closely with residents and made several changes. It also is complying with the village’s wishes by presenting a long-range plan, officials say, even though it is too soon to know exactly what might be needed and when that will be.

Months of wrangling could come to a head at 7 p.m. Monday, as the village’s plan commission for the third time hears testimony in a continuing public hearing that began last fall.

Originally scheduled for Feb. 28, the meeting was delayed and the location moved from village hall to the Libertyville Civic Center, 135 W. Church St., to accommodate an expected crowd.

“There are four issues at this point, but the building use issue is the biggest,” said Rick Marder, point man for Citizens United for Healthy Development in Libertyville.

Over-the-fence conversations among neighbors on Adler Drive, which abuts the northern border of the County Farm, progressed into an organized group. A website, Facebook page and e-mail campaign followed. Elmhurst-based Citizen Advocacy Center, a nonprofit that monitors government abuse of power, has publicized the issue.

In a call to action to its members, neighbors have cited jails, juvenile probation centers, halfway houses, courts and other facilities as possible uses allowed by the zoning classification.

“We’re just trying to make sure what they build on this campus is appropriate for the location,” according to Marder.

The citizen group has described the plan as ambiguous and vague.

“Since they don’t know what their needs are and don’t know what they want to do, we can’t give them unbridled freedom to throw up anything they like,” Marder said.

Residents also contend once a master plan is approved, the ability for public input on individual pieces will be diluted.

“We’re fearful of being locked out of the public process for 20 years,” Marder added.

Residents also would like to see a berm along their properties installed and landscaped immediately so it can mature before any structures are built. The county says it can’t do that.

Interior lighting of future buildings should be regulated to avoid “campus glow” residents contend. Future traffic was also noted as a potential issue.

County officials say they have met several times with residents and made concessions on various aspects, including traffic and lighting, but can’t be as specific about the future as some may like.

“We’ve been trying to balance our ability to deliver the services we may need to deliver with the concerns of our neighbors,” said Matt Guarnery, project manager for the county.

The master plan, the first for the 172-acre campus, is sought by the county as a condition imposed by the village for approval of the $23 million Central Permit Facility, which opened last year.

“It was basically so the village and the residents know what the county’s intentions are for the property,” said John Spoden, the village’s director of community development. “The whole idea behind this is to get the public input.”

As proposed, nearly 40 percent of the area would be preserved as open space. The site is divided into eight development zones, but specific uses are not listed.

Guarnery said the county can’t make exact plans at this point.

“We don’t know what (services) we’ll need to provide,” he said. “I like to tell people we’ve owned it for 160 years and we’ve only made it through half the property.”

Residents say they prefer any new buildings be only for general offices or administrative use, but the county can’t guarantee that.

“Most of what we do is deliver services in one fashion or another to the needy of Lake County,” Guarnery added. “It’s hard for us to say,” what will be needed in the future, he added.

Several revisions have been made since the plan was submitted last summer. In the two development areas bordering the neighbors, for example, the county has prohibited “correctional institutions.”

The county also proposes that a special use, which involves a public hearing, would be needed for any 24-hour operations, such as residential care or senior living, proposed for that area.

That would apply to any use that requires overnight accommodations in either a “secure or semi-secure” setting, according to the county.

Development in other zones would not require a public hearing if the master plan is approved. But individual buildings would require a site plan permit, which is reviewed by the village’s appearance review commission and the village board, Spoden said.