Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2007

Home

(0. Zoning Bulletin NRLU argued that it had attempted to stop construction by filing the temporary restraining order, and that the lower court had erred in denying it. It claimed that, if the case had become moot, it was denied an opportu- nity for judicial review. However, the court found no assignment of error. Further, the court noted that, since the building had been completed, the "proverbial bell [could not] be unrung and an appeal after final judgment on the merits [would] not rec- tify the damage." Because NRLU did not obtain an injunction on the con- struction before it commenced, the appeals court was without jurisdiction. The case was dismissed as moot. See also: Poulson v. Wooster City Planning Comm., 2005-0hio-2976, 2005 WL 1398911 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Wayne County 2005). Variance - 'Developer claims board chairman's bias influenced variance decision Board claims proposal failed to meet any of the conditions for vanance Citation: Kimball Dawson. LLC v. City of Chicago Dept., of Zoning, 2006 WL 3754807 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2006) (' ILLINOIS (12/21/06) - Kimball Dawson, LLC, a developer, purchased property in a residential area of Chicago with the intention of building four, three-story multi-residential buildings. In total, the development plan called for 41 condominium units, each with its own parking space. Construction began on the project in 2003. However, Kimball did not ob- tain any building permits or request any variances until after construction began. Eventually, Kimball applied for variances for each of the four build- ings from the yard size and setback requirements and for the elimination of the loadmg zone for one of the buildings. The zoning administrator denied all of the requests. Kimball appealed the denials to the board of appeals, which held a hearing. At the hearing, Kim- ball presented two witnesses: a managing member and the architect who had designed the project. Both noted that the shape of the property and a subway ventilation grill made development without the variances a burden. The architect testified that a single building could be constructed on the site without variances, but that the four-building design was more harmoni- ous with the characteristic of the neighborhood. Also, the architect stated that the project would not be detrimental to public welfare or safety, increase traffic, or diminish property values. However, he did not offer any specific evidence in support of these findings. Several people spoke in opposition to the project, including neighbors and an engineer for the city. The engineer presented alternate site plans that showed development was possible without variances. After clarifying some of his statements to the board, the engineer stated that Kimball had not proven that a variance was necessary, to which .the board chairman respond- ed: "[t]hat's two of us." 7 21