Remington Creek residents urge Roscoe board to block rezoning, cite traffic and safety concerns

Remington Creek residents told the Village of Roscoe board on April 1 that a pending request tied to the sale of a 66‑acre parcel adjacent to their subdivision should be denied or limited to a single house because of traffic, safety and procedural concerns.

"My wife and I have been residents of Remington Creek for the last 33 years ... and we absolutely adore it," said Laverne Ohlwine, a Remington Creek resident, describing the neighborhood as "a safe place for people to walk." Several other residents debated the applicant's filings and asked the board to block or narrow any rezoning or annexation tied to the sale.

The residents’ concerns centered on traffic and safety: Remington Creek is effectively a one‑way‑in, one‑way‑out subdivision with 39 existing homes and, residents said, roughly 50 vehicle trips per day on Sheringham Drive. Speakers said an earlier plat they had seen showed a potential build‑out of as many as 26 lots on the adjacent 66 acres, which would add scores of daily vehicle trips and construction traffic on a narrow road with no sidewalks.

"I would much rather see that if these people need to develop that area, that they choose an area where they can access directly off of Belvedere Road," said Ron Bezdon, a Sheringham Drive resident, citing wear and tear on recently resurfaced streets and safety for children and cyclists.

Several speakers also questioned the application materials and the process. George Chapman said residents who raised objections at a prior Committee of the Whole meeting felt their comments were dismissed: "It was completely discounted and written off. We were completely ignored." Sean McCarron noted the neighborhood’s governing documents: the Remington Creek homes have recorded "declarations of conditions and restrictions" that many residents said were not being applied to the subject parcel.

Roger Kaage, a Remington Creek resident who said he attended the zoning committee meeting, described a compromise the subdivision would accept: limit development on the 66‑acre parcel to a single house and do not extend Sheringham Drive beyond its current end. "If that's the case ... it would be in the village's best interest to specify that Sheringham Drive does not get extended past where it ends right now," he said.

Noel Hodge, who participated online, told trustees the rezoning under consideration could permit more than one home and said that possibility raised safety concerns for families who regularly walk in the neighborhood: "It is a safety concern for many people if this land at the end of Sheringham is zoned for a code that would eventually allow for more than 1 home to be built."

Residents also asked why the parcel's zoning status appeared inconsistent in public materials. Speakers said the applicant had sought R‑1 residential zoning at a prior hearing but the agenda packet for April 1 listed the parcel as "rural residential," and they asked the board to deny any action until a complete, accurate plat and site plan are provided publicly.

No formal action on the parcel's rezoning or annexation was taken during the board meeting. The board’s president said the item is listed for the Committee of the Whole that followed the meeting, giving trustees another opportunity to consider the application with public input.

The public comments on the parcel lasted through the board meeting’s public‑comment period; residents asked the village to require clear plats, to limit access that would extend Sheringham Drive, and to preserve the subdivision's current character.

Clarifying details cited at the meeting included the 66‑acre size of the subject parcel, Remington Creek’s 39 homes and roughly 80 acres as described by a speaker, the neighborhood’s recorded deed restrictions, and the residents’ estimate that 26 lots had appeared on a plan they had seen. Speakers asked that any rezoning be limited to a single‑house use or that the village deny the current application until full plats and utility/access plans are submitted and made public.

The trustees adjourned the board meeting and the Committee of the Whole consideration of the property followed later on the agenda; no vote on annexation or rezoning was recorded during the board meeting portion.