Teardowns will continue to put Riverside at risk
The recent Riverside Board of Trustees meeting on Feb. 7 concerning the proposed residential zoning ordinance did little to alleviate my concerns regarding the increase in large-scale, high-cost homes going up throughout the village.
In the end, it is not merely the aesthetics of our community that is at risk, it is the community itself. Over the years my family has lived in Riverside, we have enjoyed living among a range of neighbors.
We live with families of generous means and modest means, we live with widows and retirees, our children’s teachers live within walking distance. I fear that if we fail to rein in the large-scale, high-cost homes developers favor, we will lose that diversity and, with it, much that makes Riverside attractive.
If our children’s teachers cannot afford to live in the community they serve, what lesson does that teach?
Mary Centorcelli
Riverside
Of check sign offs and sign removal
This letter is to all the residents of Brookfield. This is in regards to Michael Garvey’s statements about the CVS Pharmacy (“Garvey wants probe of Brookfield CVS deal,” NEWS, Feb. 9).
Did you and Kit Ketchmark not both sign the paper that allowed the check to be written to pay the back taxes? I recall you both saying in the newspaper that you don’t remember it, but when shown the document you agreed it was your signatures.
This is calling the kettle black. When you both authorized the check back in June 2002, if you had any questions you should have asked then. This is the reason not to vote for the PEP Party in the upcoming election. They all have selective memories. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Secondly, to the people living around the old Buresh’s restaurant, please take down your “No Rezoning” signs. You can face a fine of $750 a day, and we all know that since you live by that eyesore that everyone else in Brookfield refer to people living north of 31st Street as the slums of Brookfield. You made your bed, now lie in it.
Mark A. Roegner
Brookfield
Henninger proposal wrong for downtown Riverside
The Village of Riverside recently spent a great deal of time, effort and money in developing a new zoning code for the Central Business District. A maximum of three stories and minimum lot area per unit was adopted. The developers of the Henninger site were aware of these restrictions going in, yet they proffer a design that exceeds the code in almost every aspect (“Henninger developers taking case to Zoning Board,” NEWS, Feb. 9). Do they know something we don’t know?
At the first presentation of this design, the architects could not or would not state clearly what the total height of their building would be. Later they owned up to a projected height of 46′ to the “roof line” with “design elements’ rising above that. Judging from their drawing, it would appear that they are proposing a building that will be close to 55 feet in height.
No scale drawings from various perspectives have been presented showing its size in relationship to the other existing properties. If one considers what a building of this height would look like when approaching the site from the east (on Burlington), the west (on Forest), or from the North (on Woodside or Longcommon), it is easy to see that this will create a monster building that will be totally out of scale with its surroundings.
If 20 units are allowed it will make a significant contribution to the already difficult access and traffic problem right at the village’s most congested intersection. It is completely unrealistic to think that anything less than a minimum of 1.5 off-street parking places per unit should be provided. If the mandated setback is reduced by 50 percent to just 5 feet they will be constructing a vertical facade rising to more than 50 feet within just a few feet of the main corner in the village. Arlington Park, here we come.
If the requirement for on-site parking for the retail shops is reduced from 20 to just seven, it will further congest the area’s already meager parking supply. Where are the employees of these businesses supposed to park? Likewise, a reduction in the width of the traffic aisle servicing the building is sure to cause congestion from delivery, garbage and other vehicles that will spill into Burlington.
All of the above are self-evident. So will be the signal that will be sent to other property owners and developers who will surely demand these same or similar variances for their properties.
If these variances are granted, how do you prohibit someone from demanding a similar right to build four stories on the property directly across the street? How high will the new owners of the Arcade building want to go with their condos? Where do you draw the line: How do you stop this snowball once it gets rolling?
Riverside is a tiny island that was designed before the advent of the automobile. Small shops can’t compete with the big box retailers. The village simply does not have the space to become another Highland Park, regardless of what the board thinks.
Either the village has a zoning ordinance or it doesn’t. If the village board is not going to enforce the code as recently written under their aegis, then they should resign en banc.
Donald Spatny
Riverside