|
| |
Below is a copy of Cathy Barry's Letter to the
Editor.
This should have appeared in the May 15th Deerfield Review but was
held until the May 21st issue. The review claims there wasn't room,
because they had to print the Mayor's Sate of the Village Statement.
But they didn't have to, we all got it in the mail. My theory is
that it was too much in conflict with the editorial that appeared in the
May 15th issue.
=====================================
May 12, 2003
After reading last week's letter by Barbara Struthers and Janice Shaw,
2 members of the Deerfield Residential Redevelopment Task Force, I feel
compelled to point out a different perspective. I have been to the last 2
hearings before the Plan Commission, have read the entire recommendations
of the Task Force and still cannot figure out why they have created a
mountain of legislation against a molehill of redevelopment. I'd like to
point out the major concerns I (and several others) have, in the hopes not
only of having my questions answered, but also to inform other Deerfield
residents of what is at stake.
- The Task Force claims 95% of Deerfield residents support their
proposals (which have changed 3 times since I've paid attention), but
has yet to produce a single Deerfield resident who will demonstrate
they have been negatively impacted by a large home built near them. In
other words, prove a single example where the value of a smaller home
next to a new, larger home has gone down.
- Why does the Task Force see itself as a flock of
sheep so eager to follow the regulatory footsteps of neighboring North
Shore communities? Just because other towns are regulating home
reconstructions/additions doesn't mean we should. Several thoughts
come to mind:
- We didn't compare ourselves to all these other towns when
designing a new downtown.
- FAR (floor-area ratio) comparisons are usually made by the Task
Force on an apples-to-oranges basis, and shame on the Task Force for
trying to slip this by the public! Different communities factor
some, none or all of the following into their FAR calculations:
finished basements, attached garages, cathedral ceiling space,
attics and porches. Also, the low FAR restrictions in other towns
used as an example of how "generous" the Task Force here
in Deerfield is are for much larger lots than typically found in
Deerfield.
- The Task Force has repeatedly stated that their proposals are
"a work in progress". If it isn't a rock-solid, justified
and just proposal, scrap it or keep working on it. The Task Force
has also repeatedly stated that Glencoe is on their third revision
of their residential redevelopment ordinances and Northbrook is on
its fourth. Why are we so eager to jump on board a bandwagon so
faulty it needs repeated overhauls? How many residents in Glencoe
and Northbrook have been adversely affected by over-reaching
ordinances while those towns struggle to get it right?
- The Task Force, after nearly 2 years, is recommending a Phase I and
a Phase II to their plans to alter residential redevelopment. Phase II
issues include at least 7 specific items to consider. I believe that
decisions on Phase I cannot be responsibly made without knowledge of
the recommendations in Phase II. For instance, I am one of 25% of
Deerfield homeowners (approximately 1600 homes out of 6000 total) that
lives on a nonconforming (read less than 9000 square feet) lot. If the
Task Force gets their way, I would be able to tear my house down and
build a house as large as 3500 sq. ft. in its place. However, because
my lot is 50 feet wide, the current zoning (which is not proposed to
change) would require 20 feet total of side yard setbacks, leaving 30
feet of buildable space. Given the constraints, a rear-lot, detached
garage is the only possibility for a 2-2+ car garage. However, the
length of the driveway to access the garage and the square footage of
the garage and a 2 story house with a 1750 sq. ft. footprint will be
illegal with any revision to the impervious surface regulations, an
agenda item for Phase II. Alternatively, since I can't build higher
than 22 feet on the sides of the house (rendering a third floor
impossible), I suppose I could excavate 2 stories below the ground. I
did hear Task Force member Johnstone (a developer, no less) say that
basements are as nice to live in as above-ground floors. Comments like
Mr. Johnstone's cause considerable erosion of credibility of the
opinions of Task Force members with the public.
- The Task Force likes to cast a condemning eye over the current
zoning restrictions by referring to Deerfield as a "builder's
free-for-all". I see the reasons for that epithet (attributed to
an anonymous mortgage broker; one person's unsubstantiated opinion) in
an entirely different light. Other North Shore communities have much
more expensive housing stock than Deerfield. I think that builders
like to work in Deerfield because the residents are affluent, the
housing prices are only high but not unbelievable, and the housing
stock begs for a makeover. For instance, building materials are much
more energy efficient today than they were 10 years ago, let alone 50
years ago. Sociological studies show a significant increase in
families returning to multi-generational households, and offspring are
living at home longer. Houses need to reflect changing tastes,
materials and lifestyles. Deerfield doesn't have many examples of
impressive architecture, with most exceptions lying in the new home
category. So what if all the houses on a given block don't match?
Eventually they probably will! In the meantime the few who find it
awkward are proposing measures that limits progress with no clear
benefits to anyone.
- The Task Force sometimes claims that smaller homes on
nonconforming lots will not be hurt by their proposals, and at other
times callously assert that it's too bad if it hurts a few but
benefits the majority. Well 25% of homes will be negatively impacted,
which is not an insignificant or trivial number. Without even
considering ramifications from Phase II items, homes that are already
greatly restricted from development under current zoning laws would be
affected even more with the passage of the Phase I recommendations. If
my property is not developable to the standards of today's housing
market because of height restrictions, FAR and side-plane setbacks, I
will lose value in my property the second the proposals are passed
into law. I should point out that none of the Task Force members live
on a nonconforming lot, and evidently can't put themselves in our
shoes.
- I wonder how the Task Force on Residential Redevelopment
will clash with the Task Force on Downtown Development. The
Residential Redevelopment folks give lip service to protecting
neighborhoods and religious fervor to preserving trees (a Phase II
agenda item!). The Downtown Development folks are planning to do away
with several dozens of homes, building more multi-family housing (with
roof heights much higher than 35 feet, if recent Deerfield complexes
are the norm), and cutting down untold numbers of trees.
- Finally, two of the members of the task force, Bob Benton
and Chairman Bill Seiden are also Village trustees. I hope the public
is aware of their conflict-of-interest in these redevelopment matters,
and that they are required to recuse themselves from voting on these
proposals when the are voted on by the Board.
To summarize, at least 25% of Deerfield residents stand to lose freedom
to develop their property, whether they teardown and rebuild, or even make
an addition. Current zoning is more than adequate, especially on smaller
lots. The Task Force needs to be told that they are not representing the
majority of Deerfield homeowners, and that we aren't concerned with zoning
regulations in other communities.
Sincerely,
Cathy Barry
526 Hermitage Dr.
Deerfield, IL 60015
847-374-8706
cbarry@northwestern.edu
|
|
