If ever the phrase “making lemonade out of lemons” could be applied to the goings-on in Brookfield, the non-meeting of the village’s Plan Commission last Thursday should win consideration.
On its face, the last-minute cancellation of the meeting was a complete screw-up. According to village officials, the reason the meeting was halted was that notice wasn’t physically posted inside village hall, even though it had posted notice in the newspaper, at the property itself, and in a letter to neighbors.
According to Terry Mutchler, the Illinois Attorney General’s public access counselor, while the other notice was fine, the notice at village hall 48 hours prior to the meeting itself was “definitely necessary.” As such, the village did the proper thing in canceling the meeting.
It’s troublesome, however, that details like posting meetings get overlooked. This is the third time within the past six months that a meeting on a development-respectively on Blanchan Avenue, Forest Avenue and Brookfield Avenue-has been postponed due to an error in posting or providing the correct paperwork to a village commission.
And while this particular incident was pinned on a village hall staffer, there has got to be some responsibility taken at the top for such administrative sloppiness. These are not egregious errors involving corruption, but they are careless errors that cost people-developers, staffers, residents-time and energy. Village management has to get better at attending to those details.
In this instance, in a stroke of good fortune not necessarily deserved, the error resulted in a neighborhood heart-to-heart with a developer who underestimated the response to his development. Some 150 residents-for the most part focused, respectful and well-behaved-turned out to hear from the developers and the architect (who, to their credit, stood up and took the heat seriously and respectfully).
It was the single largest neighborhood turnout for a Brookfield development in recent years-certainly larger than the very contentious Buresh Lobster House meetings throughout 2004-05. It was a fantastic opportunity to exchange information and concerns about a project that will almost certainly have some impact in the neighborhood.
The meeting was so helpful, in fact, that we wonder whether such meetings might be included in the development review process as a regular feature. It is clear from the last two development projects to come down the pike-on Forest Avenue and now on Brookfield Avenue-that the residents have clear opinions and want to engage in the process. The village should look at that response and understand that it is in its own best interest to encourage that kind of engagement.
Adding a neighbor-developer meeting to the planning process will slow things down only slightly, in our opinion, if the developer approaches the development reasonably. If what the developer is asking is outrageous, then the meeting may serve as a much-needed brake on the process.
Development should be a two-way street-as a benefit to both developers and the village and its residents. But it’s up to the village to provide the forum for an exchange of ideas to take place.
That is, if they can post the meeting correctly.