By Igor Studenkov | Bugle Staff
nweditor@buglenewspapers.com
@NilesILNews
The Park Ridge Procedures and Regulations Committee of the Whole gave a first look at a series of changes that would give the city council more say over zoning applications and changes to the zoning code.
Under the current law, the planning and zoning commission has final authority to deny special use permit applications, while the city council has final say over whether to approve them. Similarly, the zoning board of appeals has final authority to deny zoning variance applications.
The new ordinance would give the city council the final say in either case. It would also loosen the voting requirements to override the planning and zoning commission’s vote against changes to the zoning code.
While the current law requires a supermajority, the new ordinance would make it a simple majority.
During the Jan. 15 committee of the whole meeting, residents and members of the zoning board of appeals raised concerns about the impact of the changes, arguing that it would make the zoning process too political.
In the end, the aldermen decided that there were several issues that they wanted to get more information on before they could vote and agreed to continue the discussion at the next meeting.
The planning and zoning commission’s responsibilities include reviewing site plans for any new developments, and approving or denying them.
While the current law makes the decision final, the new ordinance would let the applicant appeal to the city council, which can either overturn the denial, overturn the denial with modifications to the site plan or agree with the planing and zoning commission’s decision.
The commission also reviews special-use permit applications. Under the current law, it has the final authority to deny the application. But if it approves the application, the application then goes to the city council for a vote.
The new ordinance would require the city council to make the final decision in either case.
The ordinance would also remove a paragraph that allows the planing and zoning commission to recommend that the city council make “exceptions” to the zoning requirements, so long as the commission can present a finding of facts based on the evidence gathered at the public hearing to prove that it would achieve zoning district objectives.
The planing and zoning commission also reviews all zoning code amendments.
Under the current law, it the commission rejects the amendment proposed by the city council, the council can still approve the change if a supermajority – 6 of 7 aldermen or five aldermen and the mayor – votes for it.
The new ordinance would reduce the threshold to a simple majority.
The changes also touch on the zoning board’s ability to review zoning variances. Under the current law, the board has final authority to deny applications with major variances, while the city council has the final authority to approve variances. The ordinance would give the city council the final authority in both cases.
According to meeting documents, City Attorney Julie Tappendorf recommended the changes after the discussion about two cases – that fence variance for the 831 Home Ave. property and the ongoing legal dispute over the 400 W. Talcott mixed-use development.
The changes, she argued, would give the city council more legal protection, and remove what she described as inconsistency in the municipal code’s language – the planing and zoning commission and zoning board of appeals are both described as recommending bodies, yet they have administrative authority.
During the Jan. 25 meeting, zoning board member Missy Langan argued that the changes would make the zoning process subject to political considerations rather than legal facts.
“The [site plan] appeal could potentially have political overtones, where denial could be overturned for reasons other than law,” she said.
The current procedure, Langan said, has worked well for 20 years, and she didn’t see a good reason for changing it because of an “emotional case.”
“It’s the way we’ve been doing it all along and it hasn’t been problematic,” she said.
Langan added that removing supermajority requirements could conflict with state law.
Resident Judy Barclay shared Langan’s concern about the changes injecting politics into the process.
“You just made it political,” she said. “You are going to pit neighbor against neighbor.”
First Ward Ald. John Moran said that, while he didn’t think the changes would make the process political, he wasn’t sure removing the super-majority requirements was a good idea.
Sixth Ward. Ald Marc Mazzuca, who chairs the procedures and regulations committee, said a supermajority could help address concerns about politicization.
“I think it’s a strong defense, I think it has proven to be a strong defense from something becoming overly political,” he said.
Acting Mayor Marty Maloney noted that Tappendorf wasn’t at the meeting, saying that he didn’t want move forward until legal questions could be addressed.
The rest of the aldermen agreed, and the committee decided to continue the discussion at the next Procedures and Regulations meeting.