Garfield project keeps on degenerating
Hinsdale officials have entered their very own “Twilight Zone,” that dimension between imagination and reality (or at least on in which they try to suspend reality).
We’re not saying the village will become a sci-fi lover’s paradise, but the Garfield project is exerting some supernatural powers. For one thing, as we said once before on this page, the development at First Streets and Garfield Avenue has spawned an amazing devise – Village President Mike Woerner’s “time machine.” It also has magically turned the village manager into an alleged law breaker.
But let’s strip away these sleights of hand. What’s really happening? Trustees reversed an earlier decision to approve Garfield I because they don’t like it, and they’re using village manager Bo Proczko as a scapegoat to ensure their success, even though he only did what the zoning code allows him to do.
They’re also stacking the deck in their favor. What’s a better strategy than putting people who object to the Garfield project in charge of deciding whether Proczko inappropriately granted the developer an extension of time for construction? Tom Nelson, an outspoken critic of the Garfield project, is the new chairman of the zoning board appeals.
But Nelson has no intentions of taking himself off this task. The lawyer of the Garfield project has asked ZBA members who contributed time or money to a Garfield opposition group to reveal their involvement. The lawyer also is suggesting that Nelson was a member of an opposition group and is questioning Woerner’s motivation for appointing him ZBA chairman.
According to the attorney retained by the village to advise the zoning board, no financial gain means no conflict of interest. We disagree. If Nelson belonged to an opposition group, he should recuse himself. Just the appearance of impropriety should be enough to dissuade any official from voting on an issue.
Nelson wasn’t present at last month’s public hearing when ZBA members learned of a motion trustees passed just the night before. On July 19, the village board limited the scope of the ZBA hearing on the Garfield project to Proczko’s actions. When the attorney for the Garfield project asked if the ZBA would follow the trustees’ motion, no one could answer because they hadn’t read it.
Either trustees should not have passed a motion the night before the ZBA meeting or they should have made sure ZBA members had time to review the information beforehand. It’s unclear why trustees waited until the last minute when they knew at least a month ago that the ZBA hearing would take place July 20. Not much was accomplished – except two hours of billable time for the village’s special counsel – and the hearing was continued to next month.
And maybe it doesn’t matter. Most likely this hearing is just a farce. Trustees will hold their own hearing after the ZBA is finished. The board will look at whether the approved Garfield I plans complied with village codes and how the ordinance approved by the village for Garfield II affected the site plan for Garfield I.
Trustees don’t seem to trust anyone but themselves to come to the correct conclusion, and we don’t need a crystal ball to predict what that will be.