Residents fill the room, disappointed in outcome, threaten lawsuit
By Dee Longfellow
For The Elmhurst Independent
A dozen or so people speaking during public forum weren’t able to sway the City Council from approving the Elmhurst Extended Care Center (EECC) project planned on Fremont Ave. One person even mentioned filing a lawsuit. Everyone who spoke urged the Council to vote down the project, which they feel will be intrusive to the neighborhood and lower property values.
A motion was placed on the table and City Council held a discussion led by Sixth Ward Alderman and Development, Planning & Zoning (DPZ) Committee Chair Michael Honquest, who began by thanking City staff for their hard work on this hot-bed issue.
“This case has been ongoing since Nov 2016,” he said. “Here are some of the highlights. It was originally voted down by the Zoning & Planning Commission (ZPC). At that time, the applicant pulled it back, made some changes, then went back to ZPC, which held multiple public hearings. Then they came before the DPZ committee. There were 13 requests for the applicant and 11 of those 13 items were taken care of by the applicant.”
Honquest urged the Council to approve the measure.
ZPC deliberations guide discussion
Third Ward Alderman Dannee Polomsky also thanked staff, ZPC members and the DPZ Committee for their hard work. She also thanked residents for their patience.
“The objections focus on, if and to what extent does this [project] fits into the neighborhood,” she said. “Or will we see an anomaly sitting in the midst of single-family homes? We must decide if it is not injurious to the neighborhood and will not impair property values and that it would not impede normal development and other improvements.
“[The applicant] made an effort to enhance the design. Thanks go to the EECC for offering to meet with neighbors, we appreciate their willingness to be cooperative.”
Ultimately, Polomsky didn’t feel those decisions could be made, therefore said she would not be supporting the project.
Fifth Ward Alderman Scott Levin asked Honquest what the reasons were that the ZPC turned it down.
“The Commission first had the split vote, then we [the DPZ Committee] took it and reviewed our Code as to what the applicant had done in their revisions,” Honquest said. “We felt it met the requirements … After reviewing it, one of the valid points was that, a very wealthy individual could have bought three lots and put up a giant house without a conditional use. It would be unusual, but that could happen.”
Ald. Levin spoke again.
“I know a new configuration was done and the new one IS different,” he said. “The orientation sets it back substantially. Specific complaints by the neighbors were about parking, traffic, using the driveway, etc. Those were all eliminated by the reconfiguration.
“The neighbors who have contacted me asked, ‘Would you want this next to your house?’ But nursing homes and churches and other uses are permitted in residential neighborhoods. I see a number of cases where a house is adjacent to a church parking lot. I’m just saying, it’s a similar institutional structure. There will always be situations like that.”
ZPC vote shows lack of consensus
Fourth Ward Alderman Noel Talluto pointed out that the ZPC’s tie vote spoke more to the lack of consensus.
“I recognize that it is unusual for us to go against a recommendation by a Commission,” she said. “It’s a unique circumstance. First of all, it was a split vote. So we have to peel the onion back a little more. In this case, we were lucky to have a copy of the actual deliberation of the Commission. If we take the time to read those transcripts of the Commission’s deliberations, you’ll see that there was not even consensus at the standard level.
“The split vote of 4-4 represents the lack of consensus. It’s not a cut and dry case, we all have to make a judgment based on the facts in the case and the laws and ordinances.
Just because the 4-4 vote is technically a vote against [the project], it really points out that there was no consensus.”
Bram concerned with precedent, standards of Code
Third Ward Alderman Michael Bram asked about how the project fit into the Comprehensive Plan and was reminded by other aldermen that the Plan was meant only to be a guide. Bram was also concerned about setting a precedent.
“I understand our Comprehensive Plan is only a guide… But we have to default to what the code says,” said Bram. “In the Plan, it says these lots are to be residential and should stay there. The question is, ‘Is EECC residential?’ … This development is NOT single-family residential. We should deny this by our own set of codes. If we approve it, we are setting a precedent, because we’re putting the burden of proof on the applicant. But our own set of Codes says that it’s not acceptable.”
Bram then brought up a possible lawsuit.
“Another thing, some residents said they would consider a lawsuit,” he said. “That shouldn’t even play into it. Six months ago, it was pulled back to the Committee. But we are here today, threatened [with a lawsuit] by neighbors or by the applicant. — But the applicant did what they thought was right and the EECC needs to do what they feel is right, but if a law suit comes about, we shouldn’t be afraid, we should stand behind the ordinance and do what the ordinance says.
“The ZPC has voted it down once, they actually voted it down twice. The tie goes to the runner, in this case is against the petitioner. Have there been changes, yes, but are they within the ordinance code?”
“If you look at residential zoning, it specifically permits institutional places like the EECC to occur,” said Levin. “The applicant needs to show how they meet each of the standards of the conditional use and, if you meet them, we need to honor those [standards].
“We’re not afraid of a lawsuit, we just don’t know which one we’re going to get.
We must follow the law, so if our legal counsel tells us there may be a problem, we need to take that into account. The [DPZ] Committee makes the recommendation, but we have the final word. We have to make the final decision.”
Bram replied that he felt the standards had NOT been met.
“All of these standards are made for a reason, they are made so we can use them to judge if something is met or not met,” he said.
Tough decision goes down 10-2
First Ward Alderman Marti Deuter noted what a difficult decision this was.
“This has been possibly the toughest decision I’ve ever had to make on the dais because the difficulty is, I can see both sides,” she said. “It’s shown in the number of meetings and the indecision in deliberations The improvement over the original plan has indeed addressed most of the concerns. One of the challenges of the standards is that there is no black-and-white, it becomes very subjective.”
The mayor called the vote and the measure passed by a vote of 10-2 with two persons absent. ‘Nay’ votes were cast by Bram and Polomsky. The two absences were First Ward Alderman Mark Sabatino and Second Ward Alderman Bob Dunn.
