Official walks out on Garfield hearings
After calling the proceedings "unlawful," a member of the Hinsdale Zoning Board of Appeals walked out of ongoing hearings over the Garfield development project.
Board member Steven Thayer, a lawyer, announced he would leave the proceedings after urging the board to decide whether four residents filed their complaint with the board too late.
"If we don't have the authority to conduct the proceedings, we don't have the authority to be trying this case," Thayer said Sept. 21 after lawyers wrapped up questioning village planner Kristen Gundersen.
The board has been hearing testimony from village officials, planning experts and residents over whether village manager Bo Proczko acted appropriately when he gave developer Anno Domini a one-year extension on village board approval of the proposed building for Garfield Avenue and First Street.
Village trustees also charged the ZBA to decide whether the appeal was filed beyond the 45-day deadline.
Thayer said if the ZBA follows through with the lengthy hearing and then decides that the appeal was indeed filed too late, the village would face legal repercussions because the developer would have been delayed during the hearings.
"If our proceedings are later determined to be unlawful, we'd have damaged the developer as a result of our proceedings," he said.
Except for the sound of Thayer gathering his copy of the massive evidence folder, the hearing went silent--for the first time in three days of sparring among attorneys last week.
Board chairman Thomas Nelson discouraged hearing participants from persuading Thayer to stay, saying it was Thayer's choice. Nelson said it is best for the ZBA to hear both issues before members deliberate so the matters are thoroughly discussed.
"Such discussions would be premature and inappropriate, because the attorneys are the source of the evidence and the arguments--and the only source," he said.
According to village documents, Proczko approved the one-year extension of the approval of the Garfield project Jan. 7 as officials and the developer were discussing whether to pursue a second project with more parking.
On March 4, Karl Weber, Nancy Furey, Patricia Coleman and Nancy Chapa appealed Proczko’s decision. Their appeal was later rejected by the village attorney.
Mark Daniel, an attorney representing the residents in the hearing and in a lawsuit against the village, contests the claim that the appeal was late. During last week’s testimony, he brought out that Proczko did not discuss the extension decision publicly until a Jan. 18 village board meeting, which occurred within the 45 days. Proczko testified Sept. 19 that village ordinances do not require him to announce his decisions.
After Thayer’s announcement, Anno Domini lawyer Jim Dahl tried to ease his concerns by saying the company would take no legal action against board members over when they decided the issue.
His statement drew objections from Daniel, who said Dahl was unfairly promising not to sue. Steven Ruffalo, the attorney hired to represent the village, complained that it was an implied threat to sue.
“You’re all being sued,” Dahl responded, referring to a lawsuit Anno Domini has filed asking a judge to order that the village allow construction to begin.
The hearings are scheduled to continue Oct. 19, with an opportunity for public comment on Oct. 20.