BY DAVE PARRO
Attorney Vince Tessitore's contention that Planned Parenthood needs a special-use permit to open its Aurora clinic could prove to be a turning point in this convoluted case. If he's correct, Aurora will have a legal right to bring approval of the facility back before the City Council.
Planned Parenthood is arguing that the special-use permit and required public hearing wasn't necessary because the clinic was approved as a planned development district with underlying medical-use zoning, which is basically an amendment to the zoning map.
If Aurora decides a public hearing is necessary and enough neighboring residents object, the council would need a supermajority vote to grant the special-use permit. There might be enough aldermen who oppose the clinic to vote it down under those rules.
If that happens, Planned Parenthood will sue the city again, which could be what the pro-lifers want. Anti-abortion activists are looking for test cases to bring to the now-conservative U.S. Supreme Court to chip away at Roe v. Wade. Giving cities the power to limit where and how clinics are sited would certainly do that.
Kane County State's Attorney John Barsanti will look at the zoning laws as part of his review. It's unlikely he will find fraud, which would give the city a reason to keep the clinic shuttered. But if it turns out Planned Parenthood does need a special-use permit, it will add a whole new plot line to this story.
Aurora's zoning code, however, seems to show that PDDs already come with approved special uses and zoning variances are granted for the larger tract of land. See the code here, starting with Page 198. It's just one more thing for Barsanti to sort out.
UPDATE: The city says the planned development district that includes the Planned Parenthood clinic was approved in 1973 as part of the 4,000-acre annexation of the property that includes the Fox Valley mall. That area has its own zoning map that supercedes Aurora's standard code, and a not-for-profit health clinic does not require a special-use permit there.
Sometimes it pays to have our Creator on the side of life!
Thank you Jesus, and all pro life people~please continue praying, harder than you have prayed for anything in your life!!
What a blessing it will be if planned parenthood is never allowed to open the doors of their building in Aurora!
I am unclear why a clinic, that provides medical services as well as birth control is not welcomed. More birth control, less unwanted pregnancies and less abortions. Seems illogical to stop what will diminish the abortion rate.
If the Tessitore memo is correct in its analysis of the condition of the zoning law and classification of the land on which the Planned Planned building is located and it appears to be correct, then there is a very real and very basic question that needs to be considered.
In short who is minding the store?
how it it that the city staff does not know or cannot read the zoning ordinance and make a correct determination of something seemingly as simple as determining the correct zoning classification on a parcel of land. Further, just as importantly just what process is required under the zoning ordinance to be sure that all requirements have been met like a public hearing when required.
These people are paid a lot of money, too much in my opinion, so what are we getting for the money?
In this instsance not much.
I have read what was posted by V. Tessitore on Openlineblog.com and it reads that there was a modification of the 1973 annexation agreement "Only the uses that are permitted uses on December 7, 1993 or which subsequently became permitted uses in a B-B Business Boulevard District of the Zoning Ordinance shall be permitted uses in the Business Areas of the Region to which this modification applies."
In this instance, it appears that the City is lying. The 1973 annexation agreement cannot stand if it was modified in 1993. The Beacon news should do some investigative reporting into this. I don't think the City can just lie like that; it appears they want this clinic to open even if they break all the laws. Furthermore, in 1993 we had special use zoning; and it appears this would fall under the special use provision in the zoning code.
If the City is lying, it is the duty of the newspaper to bring this to the taxpayer's light. If the paper just goes along with the lie, then they are just as guilty of deception.