Crystal Lake officials urge county to reject B3 rezoning for former Flowerwood site, citing comprehensive‑plan mismatch

Speakers from Crystal Lake and nearby property owners urged the McHenry County Board on Oct. 16 to deny a request to rezone the former "Flowerwood" parcel to the county’s B3 business district, saying the requested designation conflicts with both the city and county comprehensive plans and could allow uses inappropriate for an entrance to Crystal Lake.

"Land use decisions in these transitional areas should be collaboratively planned and not decided in isolation," said Catherine Cowan, director of community development for the City of Crystal Lake, during the public‑comment period. Cowan said the city filed a formal objection with the county clerk and recorder and warned that a municipality objection would trigger a supermajority requirement for board approval.

Daryl Moore, who identified himself as a planner with Crystal Lake, said B3 is inappropriate for the site because it allows uses "not normally found in a business district," and flagged self‑storage facilities as an example. "Storage facilities don't create jobs, they don't generate sales tax, and they shouldn't be featured at the entrance to a community," Moore said, describing the buildings as "large, featureless buildings divided by lots of empty space."

A neighboring landowner, Kyle Denley, owner‑operator of Prairie Enterprises, said he is performing due diligence and environmental and drainage studies and is closing on a transaction at the end of the month but had not yet chosen a final use for his adjacent parcel.

Board members discussed the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) recommendation and the city objection. Several members noted that the county ZBA voted 7‑0 to recommend approval and that the 1.5‑mile notification area allows municipalities to have their objections considered by the county board. Board member Brian Gottemoeller said he would abstain on the matter. Members reiterated that the county can consider municipal objections under the "mile and a half" process and that the county’s land‑use decisions can affect adjoining municipalities.

No final rezoning vote was recorded at the Committee of the Whole meeting; the board flagged the item for separate consideration at the upcoming voting meeting and several members asked staff to ensure the public record and hearing materials reflected municipal comments.

Quotes in this article are taken directly from public comment and board discussion on Oct. 16 and are attributed to the speaker who appeared in the meeting transcript.