Garfield developer files $10 million lawsuit
The developer of the Garfield I project has followed through on a threat to bring an additional lawsuit against the village of Hinsdale, seeking more than $10 million in damages as a result of the village's handling of the mixed-use project.
Anno Domini IV LLC of Hinsdale filed a second counterclaim amendment in DuPage County Circuit Court at the end of April. The amendment names Village President Michael Woerner, Hinsdale village trustees, three Hinsdale residents who originally brought legal action over the project against the village and the developer, and members of the village's Zoning Board of Appeals as defendants.
In its latest filing, Anno Domini IV claims the village has violated the terms of an agreement it signed with the developer in May 2005 to construct the Garfield I at First Street and Garfield Avenue.
The $10 million amount in damages sought by Anno Domini is based on money already spent, and that which would have resulted from completion of the project, according to the developer.
Anno Domini seeks a ruling from DuPage County Circuit Court Judge Bonnie Wheaton allowing work to begin on Garfield I by overturning the "breach of contract" that resulted from decisions made by the ZBA and Village Board concerning the project within the last six months.
Last December, the ZBA upheld residents' challenge of former village manager Bo Proczko's decision to extend the Garfield I. That decision was followed by trustees' move in March to revoke the original ordinance that granted approval of the project in February 2004.
A finding at the conclusion of those hearings held by the ZBA and Village Board deemed the initial review process by village staff for approval of the Garfield I was flawed, and thus provided a basis for revocation. Both village bodies determined in their subsequent reviews that the Garfield I should not have been approved because it never complied with village code.
The developer has appealed those decisions, and contends the project complies with code.
Anno Domini claims a reversed course by the village regarding the project is illegal, and said it led the developer to spend more than $200,000 for architectural and engineering work on plans to meet the village's requirements to be issued a building permit.
The developer also "invested ... hundreds of man-hours and tens of thousands of dollars" with consultants and its employees working with village staff to secure such a permit, according to the lawsuit. Thousands of dollars in attorney's fees were spent by Anno Domini to draft the development agreement, the lawsuit contends.
Attorneys for all parties are expected back in court Wednesday, May 24.