Cities 92.9 and this community want to hear from you. Our community needs to made aware of experiences that your having.
Submit your “Legion Letter” to the Editor by emailing it to LegionLetters@cities929.com
This is a Legion Letter to to the Editor
By: A Wintergreen resident who feels misrepresented, who wishes to remain anonymous
We explored the option of building a new home in Wintergreen II subdivision in 2019.
At that time,Wintergreen’s developer (Tiehack Development/Jim Shirk/Lacey Shirk-Glandon) shared plans showing the existing layout of WGII as well as a developed adjacent property of “Future Development” (Wintergreen Third Addition).
This was the “Future Development Plans”
The areas of WGII and the adjacent “Future Expansion” area were designed to blend, with streets feeding through.
It presents as one property, an extension of the original Wintergreen subdivision. The plans shared with us showed similar properties to those already established in WGI and WGII.
Larger lots, larger homes with protected covenants, etc. The covenants of WGI and WGII are focused on enhanced green spaces, stone requirements on the fronts of homes, tree and landscaping requirements, fencing requirements that prohibit blocking green spaces, etc.
We were assured by our builder and the developer that the “Future Development” area would be an extension of homes similar to those existing in WGI & II.
This mattered to us, because home values are affected by surrounding properties and because we wanted to ensure that Wintergreen would be a good long-term fit and investment for our family.
Based on what was presented by Tiehack Development and our builder, we proceeded with building our home in 2019.
This same presentation of the WGII and adjacent “Future Development” area continued to be presented to other home owners as recently as 1-2 months ago.
There are lots in WGII with homes currently being constructed at well over $500,000 based on the vision for the area that homeowners were sold.
In July, a sign appeared by the “Future Development” property adjacent to Wintergreen II indicating rezoning of the area would be discussed at a Town of Normal Planning Commission meeting to be held on August 4.
This was the very first indication the residents of Wintergreen had that something was
happening with the property.
In trying to obtain details of the proposed plans and rezoning request, we as residents were met with significant resistance.
Tiehack Development (Jim Shirk and Lacey Shirk-Glandon) refused to respond to numerous calls and emails requesting details of plans for the property.
Tiehack Development holds the HOA for existing residents of Wintergreen II.
The HOA is in place to protect the best interest of existing homeowners.
Their refusal to communicate did not sit well with Wintergreen II residents. The few details obtained came through existing resident’s efforts to access public records when we became suspicious of the situation due to the lack of transparency of involved parties.
When we learned Tiehack was working with Fairlawn Capital on the development, residents attempted to communicate with Fairlawn Capital and Jason Barickman, Principal for Fairlawn Capital and Illinois State Senator.
This is the Fairlawn Proposal for comparison
Again, attempts to communicate were met with resistance and flat out refusal to
communicate with existing residents.
Calls and emails to ask questions were ignored.
The lack of transparency from Tiehack Development and Fairlawn Capital prompted 60+ Wintergreen residents to attend the Planning Commission meeting on August 4.
Attorney Robert Lenz represented Fairlawn Capital at the meeting as the “Applicant” for the rezoning request.
When asked to publicly disclose the name of the Applicant he represented in the meeting, Mr. Lenz refused to do so.
It was a resident of Wintergreen that shared that through public record we knew the applicant to be Fairlawn Capital.
Again, there was extreme lack of transparency. When questioned by a Commissioner why the Applicant had not considered or communicated with existing residents when changing development plans for the property, Mr. Lenz responded that they had no legal obligation to do so.
When a second Commissioner requested that they reconsider and meet with existing residents to openly discuss plans for the property and address potential concerns, Mr. Lenz responded that “Jason” may be willing to meet with residents but that they had no interest in changing their plans for the property.
In other words, they had no interest in the concerns of existing residents.
The Applicant was clearly prepared that Wintergreen residents intended to attend the meeting and brought in several “experts” to speak in favor of their project.
Charlie Moore, President & CEO of the McLean County Chamber of Commerce, spoke to the need to develop properties in Normal that would drive professional talent to the area.
Ed Neaves, Realtor and Managing Broker of Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices, spoke to the need for additional housing in the Bloomington-Normal market area.
Jim O’Neil, owner of Portico Homes, stated he would be working with the Applicant to build out the development.
He shared images of several duplex and single family home plans and stated their focus
was “affordability” and “density” in building out the area. He stated the homes would be sold for $319,000 and up.
Discussion of issues regarding increased traffic, drainage and possible school redistricting were also brought to the table. It was clear little had been done to properly study, plan and resolve concerns in these areas.
One significant concern that became apparent during the meeting is that the “Initial Proposed Development Plan” presented as a comparison to the “New Proposed Development Plan” was a plan dated back to 2001, which does not in any way represent the actual development of existing Wintergreen II homes.
When asked where the plan representing our existing subdivision was, we were informed there was no record of changes to the development plan from what was submitted in 2001.
This creates a significant misrepresentation of the degree of change in the new plan.
When you compare the initial plan presented at the Planning Commission Meeting to the proposed Fairlawn Capital plan, it appears only four additional lots are added.
When you compare the development plan Tiehack Development has been presenting which accurately depicts the existing streets, lots and homes in Wintergreen II to the proposed Fairlawn Capital plan, 27 additional lots have been added.
Yet, members of the planning commission kept referencing “only four additional lots”.
Residents specifically questioned the difference in development plans as presented on August 4 and to date, no answers have been provided.
In other words, the streets, the lots, the homes we all live in and pay taxes on don’t exist in approved development records with the Town of Normal.
How were approximately 50 families sold lots for homes in Wintergreen II based on a development plan for which the Town of Normal has no record?
Wintergreen II residents have requested that Tiehack Development release the HOA to residents as their conflict of interest clearly prevents them from representing the best interests of Wintergreen residents.
Lacey Glandon (Tiehack Development) has refused to do so, stating, “we don’t want to pigeon hole ourselves for any future sales.”
This has prevented Wintergreen residents from being able to take appropriate action and/or seek legal representation in the matter.
While some Commissioners expressed concerns with the situation, ultimately the Commissioners stated they had no grounds to delay approval of the rezoning request and so it was approved.
Several of the Commissioners addressed Fairlawn’s lack of transparency with existing Wintergreen residents as problematic and they were “strongly encouraged” by Commissioners to meet with Wintergreen residents before presenting their plan to the Town Council.
Only as a result of this recommendation did Jason Barickman finally respond to Wintergreen residents on August 9 and an initial meeting took place between Fairlawn Capital and Wintergreen residents on August 11.
In this meeting, the following was disclosed:
-The 110 properties proposed in the Wintergreen Subdivision Third Addition would be ALL RENTAL properties under the ownership and management of Fairlawn Capital.
The project was not disclosed to be rental prior to this.
-Fairlawn intends to rent the properties for $2,500 – $3,350/month.
-The homes being built would be of five different plans—some duplex units and some single family homes. Significantly lower valued homes than the existing homes in Wintergreen.
-Fairlawn has no intention, nor obligation under their purchase agreement with Tiehack
Development, to follow existing Wintergreen covenants; in fact their plan calls for no covenants.
-Fairlawn had no interest in considering any proposed compromises with Wintergreen residents that could delay their process.
-Once approval on this project is obtained, Fairlawn also has a pending agreement with Tiehack Development to purchase property on the other side of Wintergreen (to the East, directly behind Prairieland School) to build high-density apartments.
This would “sandwich” the two North-South running streets of Wintergreen II between two rental housing projects.
-When asked if their plans could cause redistricting for Prairieland Elementary School, Jason stated he could not answer. (Note: follow-up communication with Unit 5 indicates Prairieland will likely be redistricted if these plans proceed as proposed as Prairieland will not be able to absorb the increase from these high-density housing plans.)
-When asked if Jim Shirk, owner of Tiehack Development and HOA for Wintergreen II, would benefit financially from Fairlawn’s business plan for this property, Jason answered not yet.
-When asked about the issues with increased traffic through Wintergreen I and II, Jason said traffic is not an issue and they could always put in speed bumps. He also confirmed that traffic studies for the area have not been conducted.
An additional meeting between Fairlawn Capital and Jason Barickman was held on August 30 as Mayor Chris Koos requested any discrepancies between Fairlawn Capital and Wintergreen residents should be worked out prior to presentation of the development plan to the Town Council.
While much back and forth discussion took place, little was resolved from the perspective of Wintergreen residents.
Fairlawn Capital’s “business model” includes buying up existing and building new rental properties, and turning them into high dollar rentals.
High dollar rental buyouts are a national crisis.
They aren’t focused on “filling a need”, rather profiting their investors through high dollar rentals and subsidized housing situations where they get kickbacks from government “fair housing” programs.
Good for the investors and bad for the renters and surrounding community.
Reviews on Fairlawn Capital are not favorable from the perspective of their renters or their employees.
Jason Barickman has used his political ties to push this project forward. He has also repeatedly misrepresented the project and Wintergreen resident’s concerns to the public through local media.
He has denied to media that this is primarily a rental property project, though he has confirmed in meetings that it will be in fact be rental as this is Fairlawn’s business model.
Barickman also stated to media that the residents of Wintergreen have agreed to support the proposal when it goes before the Town Council, which is not true.
He has posed himself in the media as caring about the resident’s concerns, willing to meet with the people and compromise.
We feel this is a misrepresentation of Barickman’s dealings with existing Wintergreen residents.
Wintergreen residents are upset because we were sold a vision for our neighborhood that was very different from the project Fairlawn Capital has proposed.
Our developer, Tiehack Development, is holding our HOA hostage to push through this very different plan than that which we were sold.
They have lied to us, pulled a bait and switch, and refused to communicate with us until pressed to do so for fear their proposal may not be approved otherwise.
This change impacts our families as our homes, for most of us, are our greatest asset. Our children’s neighborhood will be impacted as will our investment.
I hope the Town Council will hear Wintergreen resident’s concerns and recognize the unjust manner in which Tiehack Development and Fairlawn Capital have attempted to push this project through.
