The current time is
Three Beecher Village Board Actions
»
Terry Gatlin
-
Beecher Herald
-
09.11.08
Sunset Resolution
At their Monday board meeting, Beecher Village Trustees unanimously passed Resolution #2008-13. In this resolution, the trustees supported the amending of Public Act 93-0658, the Tax Recovery Fund, to extend the sunset provision from December 31, 2010, to December 31, 2020.
The original thinking of the Illinois General Assembly was that taxes collected from properties acquired by the state would be distributed to the townships and villages that had originally collected taxes on these properties. According to the state, this act, signed into law on January 22, 2004, would be in effect until December 31, 2010. The land was acquired in the prospect of constructing an airport in the area before that date.
It appears that the state will not be constructing an airport before that time, and once the sunset clause expires, the townships and villages would not be eligible for future taxes, which presumably would go to the state.
As of this date, only approximately 1,600 acres of the 3,600 acres needed for the inaugural airport has been purchased. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has leased these lands for farming and the houses for rental.
story continues below »
It appears that no such airport is in the offing. According to state documents, the Illinois State General Assembly would give these taxes to the township and village administrations so as not to decrease their tax revenue.
During the meantime, the townships and villages still have to assume the responsibility of maintaining the roads, providing fire and police protection, and educating the children which occupy leased property.
The extension of the sunset clause would provide the townships and villages with the money needed to provide such services.
Pool Cover Ordinance Variance
Since 2007, Toni and Kellie Solis, who own and occupy a residence at 361 Fairway Drive in Beecher, have sought a solution to the problem of a pool in their backyard.
The Solis's have applied for a variance, which would allow them to have a powered safety cover over the in-ground pool as a substitution for a 48-inch fence.
When they originally applied for a permit for the pool and its cover, they were told by the village engineers that such a powered cover would be acceptable and that it was endorsed by the BOCA code. However, they were later informed by Village Administrator Bob Barber that they were in violation of the village zoning ordinance (Section 4.31.3).
That prompted the Solis family, even though they had been assured by the village engineer that such a cover was better than a fence around the pool, to ask for a variance from the village.
The Solis's went before the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 28 to ask for such a variance. After a public hearing, the PZC voted 5-1 to grant the variance and send its recommendation to the village board.
According to information provided by the Solis's, manufacturers and insurance companies have said this type of cover is the best way to provide for the safety of children using the pool. When no child is in the pool, the cover is closed and locked and no child has an opportunity of falling into the pool.
The PZC recommended the use of the pool cover with two provisions:
1) At all times when the pool is open and the cover is retracted, there must be adult supervision; and
2) If at any time, it is observed and confirmed by the village that the pool is open with the cover retracted and no adult supervision is present, this variance shall automatically Ð without further process Ð become void and revoked and the petitioner shall be required to install the required 48-inch fence around the perimeter of the in-ground pool.
During the lengthy discussion, objections were raised by various trustees who would not accept the information provided to the Solis's by numerable companies. Trustee Brian Cleary objected to the use of covers, because his informants told him that they were not adequate, that the owner still needed to install a fence. Cleary wanted more barriers.
Trustee Joe Gardner wanted the village to make it clear to residents what is required.
The Solis family commented that responsibility for a pool was the concern of the family, not the village. "The power cover is the best barrier," said Mr. Solis.
It was pointed out by Barber that the village ordinance concerning pools was written in the 1990's and does not include the latest technologies.
According to evidence presented, there is no guarantee that a 48-inch fence will provide a barrier to any child who wants to enter an area with a swimming pool. The question was raised as to who is responsible for their children.
Another fact noted, but not really commented upon, was the fact that the village has a creek and various other ponds, which are not surrounded by fences. "Does that mean that we have to put fences around all our ponds," asked Barber. The trustees had no answer to that question.
After the discussion, the village board voted 4-2 against allowing variance. This means, in effect, that the Solis's, who have already invested thousands of dollars following the recommendations from the Beecher Village Engineers, must now construct a fence around their pool, which will cost them more thousands of dollars.
Fence Ordinance Variance
Tim Totos and his family, who own and occupy a residence at 263 Woodridge, has requested a variance to allow him to install a fence in the front yard setback or a corner lot having a double front yard.
Totos appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission during a public hearing on August 28 to request the variance. Totos' variance was requested because of hardship.
After a lengthy discussion by the PZC and due to the fact that there was no stated opposition in letters submitted to the commission, the PZC approved a motion by a vote of 3-2-1 to send the approval to the village board. The two votes in opposition were because one member felt the hardship was not explicit enough, and the second person did not feel that variances of the code should be allowed and that a precedent was being set for future variance requests.
After another lengthy discussion, the trustees voted 4-2 for Ordinance #1104 to allow the variance. The variance included two conditions:
1) The fence shall be placed 10-feet inside of the edge of the installed sidewalk; and
2) The fence shall be constructed using a 50% open white vinyl fence not to exceed five feet in height, as presented to the PZC.
_
LATEST NEWS
SEARCH THE SITE
