Hinsdale ZBA upholds residents' Garfield appeal
Members of the Hinsdale Zoning Board of Appeals ruled unanimously Dec. 15 to grant residents' appeal of former village manager Bo Proczko's decision to extend the Garfield I project, and ruled to nullify village approval of the Garfield I development.
The board's finding reverses the one-year extension, as well as Proczko's decision to exempt the Garfield I project from any changes to village code adopted after it was first approved in February 2004. The board said its ruling was based on the fact that the project was void at the time of both decisions by the former manager because it never complied with village code.
That finding was established, according to the board, by testimony and evidence provided by village officials, residents and Garfield developer Anno Domini IV of Hinsdale during nine public hearings held from July to November 2005.
Attorney Mark Daniel, representing Hinsdale residents Karl Weber, Nancy Chapa and Nancy Furey who filed the appeal, said the ruling confirmed a "different Hinsdale than what was planned with Garfield I."
Daniel said his clients were happy they would not see the Garfield from their street corners.
"They don't want the traffic congestion this project would bring to its site and that would flood the surrounding area," Daniel said, referring to the First Street and Garfield Avenue neighborhood earmarked for the development and home to his clients.
Matt Baron, spokesman for Anno Domini, said the developer was "disappointed, but not surprised" by the board's ruling.
"We knew that this deck was stacked from the beginning against us," he said.
"We look forward to the case going to a fair, non-political court for a competent decision," Baron said, referring to Anno Domini's plan to appeal the ZBA's decision in DuPage County Circuit Court, a step they are permitted to take within the next 35 days.
A lawsuit filed in February 2005 by the same residents and an August counterclaim amendment filed by Anno Domini -- both against the village regarding the Garfield project -- have been pending the outcome of the ZBA hearings before DuPage County Circuit Court Judge Bonnie Wheaton.
Daniel said his clients' lawsuit will go forward.
While residents' appeal to the ZBA dealt with the question of the village manager's authority to grant an extension and village code exemption, the lawsuit challenges the legality of the entire Garfield project, he said.
Baron said the ZBA's ruling also does not hurt Anno Domini's chances in court, in which the developer claims the village violated a development agreement by preventing the construction of Garfield I.
"We knew we'd be back in court," he said, adding that the developer is committed to seeing the project through its completion.
Anno Domini contended during the hearings that residents Weber, Chapa and Furey filed their March 3, 2004, appeal of Proczko's Jan. 7, 2004, decision outside of the 45-day timeframe required by village code.
The 24-page decision issued by the ZBA Dec. 15, however, found that the appeal was filed in a timely fashion, as the public first became aware at the Jan. 18, 2004 Board of Trustees' meeting of Proczko's one-year extension granted to the developer to issue building permits and begin construction of the Garfield I.
The board's ruling also established the residents' right to file their appeal, concluding from their testimony that Proczko's decisions adversely affected each resident because they live in the immediate neighborhood of the proposed development site. Completion of the Garfield I project, according to the ruling, would decrease the safety for Weber, Chapa and Furey and their families while at their homes because it would bring increased traffic to the area.
The board found that the development would also cause the residents' homes to decrease in value or increase at a lower rate because of the Garfield.
Additionally, the ZBA reversed Proczko's decision in April 2004 to "freeze the code" for Garfield I, a move that fulfilled the developer's request for an exemption for the project from any changes to village code after it was approved in February 2004. Those changes to code might have necessitated alterations to the design of the Garfield I.
The ruling found the Garfield I in violation of village code in eight instances, ranging from the excessive height of the building to insufficient landscaping, loading and number of parking spaces, when it received Village Board approval in February 2004.
The procedure of approving the project was also found to be in violation of the code. The board determined that Garfield I, because of its type, required a public hearing to be held and approval from the Plan Commission to be granted before village trustees could approve the project. In the case of the Garfield I, trustee approval came without a public hearing and before approval from the Plan Commission.
Village Planner Kristen Gundersen and Proczko both testified during the hearings that the Garfield I project did not meet village code at the time of its approval. The ZBA's ruling found this condition, as well as the improper steps to grant project approval by the village, rendered Garfield I void from the start, and "gave no rights whatsoever" to the developer.
Proczko was fired by Village President Michael Woerner Nov. 28 for reasons Woerner said were unrelated to Proczko's handling of the Garfield I project, including his denial of residents' appeal. Woerner asserted after Proczko's firing that the former village manager had done nothing wrong granting the extension.
Tom Nelson, chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, said the board's decision came from deliberations conducted with quality by his fellow board members that he said he had not seen since his experience serving aboard a U.S. warship off the coast of Cuba while being pursued by a Soviet submarine.
Nelson said the ruling was reached with "single-minded pursuit of justice" in a process that was the "epitome of integrity."