Brookfield board hypocritical on zoning
Hypocrisy is defined as “putting on a false appearance.” Brookfield Trustee Kit Ketchmark, his fellow village board members and supporters have proven they fit this definition.
In his letter published in the July 23 issue of the Landmark (“Planned development was the way to go”), Trustee Ketchmark states that the decision to deny the variance requested by the Brookfield Express Car Wash was required according to state statute regarding zoning variances.
He states that “Illinois state statute outlines seven standards of variation that must be met for a local municipality to allow for a variance from its zoning code. One of these standards is called a ‘hardship.’ This is not something that can be self-induced.”
The car wash project did not meet three of the seven standards so “the Zoning Board of Appeals turned down the project, as did the village board.”
They must think the public has a short memory or they can say or do anything they want. The condos being constructed in the 3600 block of Forest Avenue received a variance for a hardship that the developer created, not having the required number of parking spaces for the number of condos being built.
The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended to not grant this variance, but the village board overruled their recommendation and granted the “hardship” despite an overflow audience overwhelmingly voicing their displeasure.
If the planned unit development is the recommended procedure, why does it not exist for both of these owners? Did one have more clout?
It is a well-known fact that Brookfield’s zoning ordinances are cumbersome, antiquated and arbitrary. There have been numerous variances granted to homeowners who build a second-story addition on their home when the existing building is less than the now required five-foot setback from property lines.
There has to be some common sense applied to these situations. When Brookfield’s zoning was changed, it made many existing homes and businesses non-conforming and there has to be some allowances made to remedy certain situations, not hypocrisy.
Wil Brennan
Brookfield
Please stop dumping yard waste
In a time when all manner of madness is happening in our nation and world, it would seem we would try to be good neighbors. This is not happening in the easement behind my house. It seems someone feels the need to dump their yard waste in the easement across the alley from the former Buresh’s Lobster House.
My neighbor and I keep the easement clean and cut the grass, and then someone keeps dumping their grass clippings where no dumping is allowed.
I have made a police report (the Brookfield police were very nice), but unless I can catch the culprit nothing can be done.
I have requested a “no dumping” sign from the village but have not heard from the village manager yet.
Please be a civil neighbor and stop dumping. Buy some yard waste bags. Put the yard waste out with your weekly garbage. It will be hauled away. Stop dumping, please.
Carol Kroll
Brookfield
Grand Blvd. story a ‘masterpiece’
Chris Stach’s “Grand Tour” of Grand Boulevard (Currents, July 30) is simply wonderful. I have always enjoyed his articles, but this is a masterpiece.
The Village of Brookfield is very fortunate to have a knowledgeable and scholarly student of its history who also happens to be a skilled storyteller, and even more fortunate that the Landmark publishes his work. Thank you.
Craig Goldwyn
Brookfield
Referendums ask Riverside to ‘walk the talk’
On July 21 the Riverside Board of Trustees passed two referendum questions that offer a chance for historic change. The first asks for revenue to meet a structural deficit that if unmet could irreparably harm our village.
If passed, this referendum would maintain current service levels and address two areas needing additional attention-public safety and preservation of our Olmstedian legacy.
The preservation aspect of the revenue referendum would improve park maintenance, reclaim and manage our neglected wilderness areas, and respond to environmental threats such as the gypsy moth and emerald ash borer. It also would provide forestry equipment for more rapid removal of hazardous and diseased trees, complete the landscaping of our business district, fund the village’s currently unfunded sidewalk replacement program, and increase code enforcement.
The second referendum question asks to make Riverside a leader in conservation and environmentally responsible practices. This question, which I sponsored, furthers a community-wide green initiative conceived by the Olmsted Society.
In their recent letter to the editor (“Motherhood and apple pie,” Letters, Aug. 6), Messrs. Reynolds and Sacchi outlined some of the things we can do to move this initiative forward. I wholeheartedly support these efforts and thank the Olmsted Society for their leadership in this area.
I am proud of my votes in favor of both referendum questions and see them as advancing a broader vision for our village that would provide the services residents deserve while also preparing a better Riverside for future generations.
Messrs. Reynolds and Sacchi charge that I am tying these two questions together out of some sort of political calculation. That is untrue. I am tying them together because I believe they belong together. The green referendum specifically states an allegiance to “increasing efforts to protect and preserve Riverside’s parks, wilderness areas, and public facilities.”
The revenue referendum would enable us to actually carry out that pledge. One sets goals; the other takes steps to attain those goals. A person can choose to support one and not the other, but that does not negate the connection between the two.
Both questions are intended to move our village toward a brighter future. For me, the green referendum represents an ideal that is given further actuality in the revenue referendum’s focus on preserving our treasured landscape. I felt that when I introduced the green referendum and I feel that now.
Others may oppose such efforts and prefer the talk without the walk, but to accuse me or others who think differently of acting in bad faith reveals a cynical underbelly to such opposition. There is nothing wrong with idealism tempered with an appreciation for the practical.
It is easy to favor things that require no sacrifice and to support reforms only when somebody else pays for them, but our village deserves better. Like all real progress, preserving and enhancing Riverside’s green legacy comes at a cost.
As a small business owner and taxpayer, I know that times are difficult for many individuals. But times are difficult for our community, too. We can wring our hands and turn our heads, or we can accept this challenge as an opportunity to make our village what it deserves to be.
I ask that we set aside distrust and innuendo in favor of open discussion and a willingness to be inspired. Let us dare to think big thoughts about our village and then back them up with action. Together we can leave Riverside more beautiful for our passing.
Ben Sells
Riverside
Ben Sells is a Riverside village trustee.
Thanks for helping the penguins
We would like to thank the people who attended our concert for the penguins (“Riverside brothers to host concert fundraiser,” News, July 23).
We would also like to thank the people who generously donated but could not come. We raised $485 and over 70 people showed up at our event. The money will help the penguins at Brookfield Zoo. We really appreciate all your help and support.
Salvatore and Massimo Flight
Riverside
‘Off-the-books’ deals compromise public trust
Recent Landmark articles on RB High School give the impression that Supt. Jack Baldermann and school board President Larry Herbst have done some things that are questionable.
For example, they have apparently had the district compensate a couple of retired teachers in a way that doesn’t involve a contract or payment records on the individuals.
As the Landmark put it, a sort of “off the books” deal was made for compensation to be applied directly to medical and dental insurance coverage.
There should have been up-front payments for their employment by the school, under a contract approved by official board vote specifying their services. The individuals could have then paid for the insurance coverage they wanted as is done by other retired teachers according to the policy-all on the record.
What was done could be troubling for those involved, and it compromises the public’s trust in the current RB administration and board regarding transparency and accountability in their management of the district.
Fred Smith
North Riverside