New course rumored in McHenry?!?!

[jack]

Anyone is support of wetlands are a bunch of fing idiots! ...Basically wetlands are created by liberals who want to use the land to block development ;permanently or because they don't think the land would be best used in that situation.  I happen to agree with him because look at all the wetlands you actually have.  How does it benefit anyone but nature and the people who support it.  It was going to be used as a fricking park for everyone!

Wetlands play a valuable role in flood control, they are very effective at filtering and cleaning water, and they serve as a habitat for many types of plants and animals. In fact, they are considered the most diverse of all ecosystems. But don't just take my word for it. After all, I'm just a pansy liberal pinko commie (in addition to an f-ing idiot).  Do some research about the valuable role wetlands play in our ecosystem.

Can't putt, regarding your question about how far one should build from the wetland, the answer varies. All wetlands require a buffer zone, which is generally thought of as a buffer against human generated disturbance in areas adjacent to the wetland. In terms of regulations, the buffer zone extends horizontally 100 feet from the wetland edge. The upland adjacent to the wetland is critical to the survival of wetland-dependent wildlife, and its importance for wildlife extends well beyond 100 feet. This adjacent upland provides the habitat critical for activities, including nesting, feeding, cover, and over-wintering. Without providing protection to the adjacent upland, a wetland is unable to support the same biodiversity. Thus, the adjacent land is really a "life zone," not just a buffer protecting these species from adjacent human activities. The size of the buffer will depend on the resource value, the intensity of adjacent land use, the buffer characteristics (slope, soil type, etc), and specific buffer functions (taken from http://www.umass.edu/nrec/pdf_files/final_project.pdf). 

Here's the part that will be telling. In the article posted up thread, a resident, Jayne Brockman stated a desire to preserve the wetlands in the park, as well as traffic and safety concerns, as her reasons for opposing the disc golf course. She said, "I am not against disc golf; ... it is just not appropriate in this location." In the next paragraph, Geri Condon agreed that the price tag had become too steep but said she would like to see something built in the park, such as a baseball field. If a baseball field (or whatever) gets built, then you'll know that this wasn't about protecting the wetland at all.

[can't putt]

Judging solely from the article it doesn't seem that Alderman Condon's view represents that of her constituency in this matter.  I'm guessing no way in hell a baseball field ever goes into that park.

It was a rhetorical question, Jack.  Given that the wetland is already incorporated into a park it is likely that appropriate buffers are included.  If so, then the houses are outside the buffer zone -- no hypocrisy.  A brief view on Google Earth confirms this.