On the Nextdoor.com website, Carol Bartlo writes:
I’m very sorry people are frustrated. I am looking forward to the May 3 meeting as well! I am also looking forward to a plan that would be beneficial to everyone, including those who oppose sacrificing our park to help a private developer. The South Long Park swap proposal is trying to solve a perceived traffic problem, but why sacrifice a well-used park when a traffic problem should be solved through responsible development and working with the Village traffic and safety committee.
Yes. Let’s Get to the Facts:
1. The new plan is still invasive and there will still be many buildings and cars on California. Now there will be even bigger buildings on South Long Street as well as a giant parking lot over half of the open area of South Long Park, and lots of extra traffic on South Long Street. It’s very kind of neighbors to suggest that buildings in one area of a neighborhood are not appropriate but didn’t consider how other neighbors might feel when the buildings are now planned for another area.
2. The fact that people oppose a 5-story apartment building (that, by the way, is not within any current building code that seems would be applicable to the South Long Park area), does not mean those same people maybe would also not like a lot of new traffic. In fact, the Village has made an effort to keep all new buildings no higher than 3 to 4 stories and a variance should not be guaranteed to any developer. Why don’t we all work together to not allow the Village to assist Natale in development larger than their property can handle (do you know that the original Natale plan could not have been built without Village assistance?)
3. Anyone opposing multi-level apartments at South Long Park has been in the game from the beginning. Please stop suggesting that we are late to the party. We just didn’t suggest moving apartments into South Long Park.
4. Those opposing development at South Long Park have been under the impression that the community plan on the Village’s website would be followed. This plan does not include apartments in South Long Park.
Obviously, it is now time to continue to play the game that includes the plans and the rules of the Village that have been in place before Natale purchased the land on California Drive.
The rest of the facts are:
1. Those opposed to high-density at the Darling site did not oppose Village government when they re-zoned the property to be high-density…what did they think would happen if property was zoned R-3M?
2. Those opposed to high-density at the Darling site did not oppose Village government when they developed the community plan that included high-density at the Darling site. We are with you in efforts to keep Natale’s footprint to a reasonable level. This should be in line with the community plan that residents have been counting on for a long time.
3. People are actively promoting significant and expensive playground facilities for the proposed relocated park. We all know there is no funding confirmed for use in creating the new proposed parkland, which is now a construction yard and a DPW dump, regardless if there are options that could be explored for funding.
Now, let’s work together to fight for upholding all current aspects of the community plan as well as responsible development. All this could have been solved if those now objecting to high density on California Drive would have challenged the board when they were rezoning to have high density on California Drive. The real question may be: Why has the Village board gone to the State to tell them about their plan for a land swap that does not correlate with their own publicized community plan, and does not correlate with the building codes they have put in place?
For those who oppose apartments in South Long Park, please sign the petition at: www.thepetitionsite.com/433/065/337/dont…
petition: Don’t Pave South Long Park