Taxpayers need answers on library plans

The recent Helen Plum Library Gazette publication stated the following from their board president: "In response, the park district suggested an alternate building design that would necessitate a zero-setback along Maple Street, require that the library convey additional land and air property rights to the park district, restrict building more than one story on the western property owned by the library, and not allow for effective stormwater management. At that time, the library did consider this proposal. We even went as far as to review it with the Village of Lombard staff, who indicated that a variance request for such a zero-setback along Maple Street was not likely to be approved. In response, the library reached out to the park district to suggest a three-party meeting/mediation with the Park District and Village in an effort to achieve a solution. The park district refused to participate in such a meeting."

As their quest for a new building continues, residents need insight on claims that a variance "was not likely to be approved." Where are details of that discussion? How does code define a zero-setback? That would seem to indicate building right up to the sidewalk yet plan documents clearly show that is not the case.

How could that plan not allow for effective stormwater management when Plum's two-building plan encompasses just as much, if not more, space?

Plum fails to address adequate parking and the need for variances. It would be fitting to see them come to agreement on the building plan and later derailed due to lack of parking.

It is unfortunate to see Plum resort to measures such as this article that calls other government entities actions into question. It's imperative that the village as well as the park district set things straight.

Lombard taxpayers deserve answers.

Robert Biddle

Lombard