Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. spatny
   Member

   Dear Ms. Rush:

   I got to last night's meeting and was unable to get a seat, but I did hear some of the proceedings. Needless to say I was surprised to see the meetings were held in reverse order from what was published, and also that there was no public comment at the "Regular" meeting even though the yellow forms were there for that purpose. Is this going to be standard procedure, that the meetings are held in reverse order and that there will be no public input at the "Regular" meetings? If so, who decided this and do they have that authority?

   I had a couple of questions I wanted to ask (again): Have the changes in the design of the Village Center been properly registered with the building department, and did they go back to Preservation for review? If so, when?

   I previously requested to be able to read the documentation pertaining to the Arcade development and never got an answer. Since it appears that this "deal" has now fallen through or else is in serious trouble, I, like a lot of other people in the Village, don't want to see this project mishandled to the point where the developer requests a tear down because the building is non-conforming or structurally unstable or some other excuse, or that this somehow gets parlayed into a whole new larger project where the old building is torn down and a faux Arcade structure with four floors and more condos is built.

   There is no reason to think this scenario could not come to pass. The building has been systematically almost emptied of tenants by the developer's indecision and inaction. As it stands right now, the CBD has lost several viable, long term businesses and gotten nothing in return. The lack of tenants will just exacerbate the developer's financial problems. Since you said they now want to "rehabilitate" - not restore the structure it seems that with the price paid for the structure can never be recovered from only the old historic part of the building with a "kiss and run" rehab.

   I don't want to see one more fiasco tacked on to an already tarnished development policy. It wouldn't surprise me if the developer already had a "new and improved" configuration in progress for this important site. I ask you, do you believe there any kind of "Landmark" protection for the Arcade building? If not, can you tell us, before it happens, what the Village Board's view is on replacing this structure if any of the above scenarios come to pass?

   Finally, I have to ask again for you and the Board to clearly declare yourselves as to:

   1. Whether or not you favor or will allow any structure to be built on the south/east side of Riverside Road past the Swinging Bridge, or in the piece of ground between the Depot and the Swim Club, on the South side of the tracks. I asked you again about this at the EDC meeting and you told me you didn't recall any buildings being sited there in the TOD study - but they are there.

   2. Whether or not you are in favor of allowing parking spaces to be cut out of Centennial "Park".

   I have asked these questions many times before, verbally and in writing, and no one will deign to make a clear answer. I believe each and every Trustee and you and the Village President should make a clear, public "Yes" or "No" answer to these questions BEFORE THE ELECTION. To not do so, to remain ambiguous or unannounced on these vital questions, is to be less than candid with the public.

   I look forward to an early and comprehensive reply.

   Donald Spatny

   Posted Tuesday Jan 9, 2007 12:18 #

2. spatny
   Member

   Please note: This was emailed to the Village Manager and any replies will be posted here.

   Posted Tuesday Jan 9, 2007 14:12 #

3. spatny
   Member

   Yesterday I emailed the above to Pres. Wiaduck, Ms. Rush and all the trustees - again - via the Forum. And again, if anyone answers, I'll post it here.

   Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 16:57 #

4. spatny
   Member

   Still awaiting a reply.

   Posted Saturday Jan 13, 2007 13:17 #

5. spatny
   Member

   Saturday mail - just received a written reply from Ms. Rush which requires some study. Here is my initial reply.

   Dear Ms. Rush:

   I just received your answer to my email. I appreciate your promptness. I will make my response in the order of your comments.

   I'm very disappointed to see that the new schedule of meetings will allow the Board to do just what I warned it would - namely discuss items at the COW where no public input is allowed and then immediately hold a "Regular" meeting where actions can be taken before any public input is allowed. I don't remember hearing any discussion of eliminating public input, and indeed I thought there would be public input at the end of the meeting, but now I see that none whatsoever will be allowed at these "Regular" meetings. This is not right and should be changed. How does this go along with President Wiaduck's call for the public to attend meetings and become involved in the affairs of the Village?

   Regarding the VC Development: Reading the plan commission minutes and your comments on the window situation at the VC project, it seems clear that the Developers received approval for one exterior design, then changed it and submitted it for building approval permits, without having the new design approved by Preservation. This is similar to the "carryover" of the height variance to both the Chmell property and the alley. Just as with the concrete Library circle, some people build things in Riverside without obtaining the proper approvals in the proper sequence. It was incorrect for the Building Department to issue a building permit and allow the construction of an unapproved design. Similar errors resulted in the refund of fees at Delaplaine Crossing. This type of inaccuracy does not inspire confidence in our system of checks and balances.

   I hope you are right about the Arcade development - only time will tell. I seem to recollect that whenever I have asked about what commitments were made at the infamous 8:30 AM Special Meeting called to effect the Resolution with the Developer I was told no definite commitments were made. Likewise it seems as if Mr. Pilewski was told that at the most recent EDC meeting, yet the exhibit which you included with Resolution 62 shows four pages of detailed call-outs showing percentages and amounts of what the Village's contributions will be - if the TIF is passed. It thus seems that the Board has in fact made some very detailed commitments to this developer which call into doubt whether or not a decision to install this TIF has already been decided upon.

   I called out the possibility of what I consider a plausible future scenario regarding the Arcade project because I want to do everything possible to save and improve that structure and have it become a viable commercial address and a focal point of the village. I don't want to see us be blindsided with some new permutation based on either the structural integrity of the building or "financial hardship" as the VC developers claimed. It can't hurt to have more people looking at what transpires there. Mr. Cariello and I are warning about what we see as a very real danger, and will continue to do so. Please understand that we want to see this building improved and succeed. We will certainly study carefully the figures you included.

   You did not answer my question about the small building and parking lot shown east of the Swinging Bridge along the south side of Riverside Road on the TOD Study map. I, like many, many others, believe that nothing - repeat nothing - should ever be built along that riverbank. Why is it that you and the Village President and Trustees can't or won't tell us clearly where you stand on that subject? Trustee Grace has now publicly stated she would never vote for anything being built there - why won't anyone else? You also did not answer my question about the land near the train depot. Can't you see that it is being evasive that fosters mistrust and makes the residents be apprehensive?

   With regard to Centennial "plaza" you also didn't answer. Surely you know the size of that space, and can visualize how much would be taken up by parking spaces if they were cut into it. It's not that complicated. This is another instance of being less than forthright with the public. Trustee Smith has talked about "being elected to lead." People want to know, before there is any TIF and before the coming election what you, the President and the Trustees are in favor of.

   I filed two FOIA requests yesterday, and will be happy to pick them up and pay the costs for the copies when they are ready. Thank you.

   Sincerely,

   Donald Spatny

   Posted Saturday Jan 13, 2007 15:42 #

6. JGage
   Member

   Mr. Spatny, good questions but sadly please see my response under "Why TIF won't work in better development controls"

   Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 12:56 #

7. MikeSedivy
   Member

   Mr. Spatny - would it be possible to post Ms. Rush's written reply somehow? I understand the technological challenges, but maybe she would be willing to cut and paste her response with your permission.

   Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 13:10 #

8. Catherine
   Member

   I personally do not post messages that I have received privately in response to ones I have sent privately. I just think it is bad form, unless of course the writer has been so advised in advance. Whether a public servant or not.

   For that purpose, I use the public emailing function on the website page here.

   You are free to put the question to her yourself however.

   Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 16:45 #

9. spatny
   Member

   Mike - I can't seem to scan it and get it on here, but I asked the lady at the Town Hall to do it if Katy has no objection. Then perhaps you can correlate better my reply. Please not that I am very concerned that nothing - repeat nothing - be built on the river side of Riverside Road past (east) of the Swinging Bridge. The TOD study shows a separate driveway enetering there and a parking lot with a small building. This is not the "boutique hotel" structure but something else. I have been asking about this before the adoption of the TOD study and for the Trustees to declare themselves as to whether or not they would allow anything to be built there in numerous verbal and written questions - for months and months - and outside of CandiGrace, no one will, Hence my doubts as to our leaders' intentions. Similarly, when I read things in the engineer's report about rezoning lots on Forest, or about extending the "riverwalk" past the town hall to hook up with the sidewalk past the Swinging Bridge, or the identification of potential building sites south of the tracks on either side of the Swim Club, etc., it leads me to believe there is another agenda tat we don't all share. I wish that you, and Corbi, and others would ask the very same questions so there could be public statements of where people stand on these issues. This land must be preserved as green space, even if it isn't parks legally, because that is the essence of Olmsted's plan, and what people here so enjoy. Please, chip in and ask that the Village President, Ms. Rush, and all the Trusttes declare themselves on these explicit issues. (Pardon the typos - hand is still bandaged.)

   Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 16:47 #

10. CandiGrace
    Member

    I have just received an email from the Village attorney advising me not to post my opinions on here. He believes that the potential for a violation is too great. You may all rest assured that I will be reading every post and thinking about what you're saying. I guess if you want to know what I'm thinking you'll have to find me in person or listen to what I say in our meetings.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 16:53 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.