Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2007

Home

(- , Zoning Bulletin NRLU argued that it had anempr.ed to stop constrUction by filing the temporary restraining ordeJ:, and that me lower court had erred in -denying - it. It .claimed thatl if the case had becom~ moot, it was denied an opportu- nity for judicial review. Iiowever, the court found no assignment of error. Further, the court noted that, .smce the building had been completed, the "proverbial belllcould not] be unrong and an appeal after final judgment "em the merits [would} not rec- tify" the d.ama-ge." Because NR1.U did not obtain an-injunction on the ccn- s~~on before it commenced, the appeals court was without jurisdiction. The case was dismissed as moot. See also: poulson v. Wooster City Planning Comm., 1005-0hio-2976, 2005 WL 1398911 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Wayne Cou.nty 200S). (' Variance -Developer claims board chairman's bias'inflUEinced variance decision BoOId claims proposal failed to meet any of the couditious for variance Citation: Kimball Dawson, LLC v. City of Chicago Dept. .of Zoning. 2006 WI 3754807 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2006) ll.LINOIS (12/21/06) _ Kimball Dawson, Il.C, a develope~ purchased property in a residential area of Chicago with the intention of building four, t:b.ree~story multi-residential buildings. In total, the development plan called for 41 condomii:llum 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 afrer construction began. Eventually, Kiroball applied Ior variances for each of the rour build- . mgs from the yard size and setback requirements and for the el.im.inatioD of the loading zone for ODe of the buildings. The zocing administr<!tor 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 In2naging member and the architect who had designed the project. Both Doted that the shape of the propeny and a subway ventilatioD grill made development without the varianc'es a burden. The architect testified that a single building could be const..-ucted on the site without variances, but that the four-building design was more harmoni- QUS with the characteristic of the neighborhood. Also, the architect stated that the project would not be detrimental to public welfare or safety, increase trafflc, or d..i.minish 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 resp,;md- ed: "[t]har's tw"o of us." ,;, 7 97