Development proposed near Seager Park

I would like to express my view on the decision of the Sun editors
requiring local columnists to write solely about Naperville
related issues.
How very provincial!
How arrogant!
How ignorant!
Yet,how very much like Naperville. Perhaps this will free up space
to deal with burning issues like "the garden plot relocation".

Several people have indicated that the proposed development adjacent to Seager Park is of no concern to them because they don't live in the immediate neighborhood. This is classic ostrich-like behavior, and is a major reason developers get away with murder in the city of Naperville. Any development - especially one that removes precious green space - should be everyone's concern.

This project is out of whack with the surrounding neighborhoods and the developer is clearly trying to pull a fast one with the City by trying to get a bunch of variances and deviations approved so he can jam in oversized buildings in an under-sized lot.

I especially like where the developer's lawyer (Brestal's group, of course!!!) is quoted as saying "What we are putting next to the park is no different than what exists next to the park right now".

What a joke!

They are planning on large, multiple-dwelling units that will rise over 70 feet OVER Plank Road and which will be built within 18 feet of the Seager Park property line!! [Columbia Estates has NO home structures that encroach closer than 50 feet of the property line.]

I imagine the lawyer had a tough time keeping a straight face when he gave that quote to the SUN!

I would encourage all who are concerned or interested to visit the website www.pc1740.com for further info on this matter.

[Speaking of lawyers, how about a good lawyer joke: It's so cold outside, I saw a lawyer with his hands in his OWN pockets!]

I find it amusing that Mr.Whitaker neglected to mention that what exists adjacent to Seager Park right now are single family homes. The property in question purchased by the developer is zoned for single family dwellings. He is now requesting that the City change that zoning to allow for multi-family dwellings so that he can build 5 three story townhomes that actually would be yards from the Seager Park walking trails. He is also requesting setback variances and associated deviances from the city to be able to build the townhomes almost right up against the Seager Park fence. He wants to change the entire scope of the property that currently has two single family homes by building a cul-de-sac with 5 three story townhomes. In the process he wants to destroy almost two hundred beautiful old trees (reminiscent of Mr.T. in Highland Park!) Please visit the website www.PC1740.com for the facts. This is not progress. It is greed.

On the contrary to Mr. Whitaker’s statement, what is being proposed in the subject areas is exceedingly different from the property that currently exists next to Seager Park, which are single-family residences, with one driveway each exiting to Plank Road, bordered by preserved natural wooded area consisting of an abundance of mature trees dating back 100+ years! The proposed development consists of an uninviting full-access road surrounded by five unsightly, high-density structures which are inconsistent with the surrounding character of the established residential neighborhood. The developers proposed tree preservation plan deviates from conservation of the existing mature landscaping and indicates planting material that meets only the minimal size and spread requirements. Endorsement of this development only opens the door to further distasteful expansion along Plank Road/5th Avenue from Naper Blvd., to Washington. Naperville, the "kid-friendly" city will soon be branded the new “Concrete Jungle” of the western suburbs!

Unless the residents want to purchase the property themselves, they will have to put up with whatever the owner of the property wants, as long as he gets proper approval. To many people want to dictate what other people can do with their property, usually by bringing up the tired green space argument. They fail to remember that their subdivision was someone else's coveted green space before it was developed.

Much as it saddens me that mature trees could be cut down, doesn't it come down to the fact that people are protesting someone making changes to his own property? The trees in question aren't owned by the protesters or the city.

Likewise isn't it a bit hypocritical that those protesting are living in homes that I would presume sit on land that was also similarly forested before they were built?

Reading the article, it seems like the land as currently zoned could accomodate five to seven homes similar to those in Yorkshire or Spring Hill, where I live. This being the case, most of the loss of trees would happen regardless. If a developer were scheming to actually acquire and develop space IN Seager, that'd obviously be going way too far. It's not like this would be apartments or a commercial (though there's already some of that on the northwest edge of the park boundary.) project.

What's being proposed though is barely different than what is allowed already from an environmental standpoint. They're just duplexes, like Cress Creek or Thorne Hill!

Personally, my real issue is with detention. Stormwater from this tract will plague us across the road until it's developed and this plan actually offers us some welcome relief.

To: Ken on December 2, 2008 12:40 PM

The operative word is "proper approval".

There is no valid reason why the City needs to bailout a developer who is trying to severely change the character of the neighborhood with a development that requires too many special allowances (variances & deviations)that compromise both safety and surrounding home values.

There is no attempt at dictating here ---- only that the developers follow all the rules, regs, laws, zoning requirements, etc., of our town.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I am sure that I do not need to reiterate that there are no multi-family structures bordering on Seager Park and so the statment from the builders lawyer is erronious but there are also no Mc Mansions bordering the park as well.

The other issues with this development are flooding for Springhill and tree loss in the park itself. The removal of the existing trees and the addition of blacktop and building structures will increase both the rate and volume of water flow. The builder has proposed a vault to hold back the water which was analyzed and accepted by the "staff" on the original proposal, the new proposal now includes TWO vaults and the original vault was increased in size. Why? The idea behind this is to holdback the rainwater and allow it to meter it out later giving the drainage system in Springhill a chance to keep up. What happens when it overflows? The rainwater dumps into Springhill and then continues until the vaults are empty.

Now about the trees in Seager. The trees along the fence line where the homes are being built will also, in all probability, die from the root systems being damaged. The tree experts from Morton Arboretium have explained this and as a result they are convinced that all the trees on the property will die reguardless of what the developer is telling us. Using the same logic all of the trees along the fence line will die.

I have trouble seeing how any of this is going to benefit the "look and feel" of Naperville.

It's not just a matter of the developer coming in and asking for a building permit because he meets all of the standard requirements and the neighbors start complaining.

Instead, because he has a difficult lot with a deep ravine running diagonally through it, and it's too narrow to put both a road and 5 duplexes on, he is asking for a bunch of variances, including one to narrow the road, and one to reduce the front yard setback. Even if he gets all these the rear of the homes will still be only 18' from the rear property line in some cases. He's just trying to cram as much in as he can get away with, and who cares what the result will be.

The city shouldn't give variances to allow developers to build whatever they want, especially on an extremely difficult lot that was bought knowing full well what a problem it would be to build a bunch of homes on. It's just not right.

Anonymous 12/02/08 1:15pm, why would the village be bailing out the developer? This proposal seems to be the original plan according to the article in the Sun. By the way, that same article says the town homes are to have a two story height, not a three story height as someone here claimed.

If the developer requests variances and gets them, he is following all "the rules, regs, laws, and zoning requirements" of the city. And quite frankly, any development of that property would obviously be a severe change to the character of the neighborhood.

Naturally, no one wants open space provided by someone else to disappear. As I said in my first post, unless one is willing to pay for the property to remain open space, they have minimal say in what the owner does with it as long as the owner does it legally.

"Likewise isn't it a bit hypocritical that those protesting are living in homes that I would presume sit on land that was also similarly forested before they were built" ... what kind of argument is that? So, that gives developers the right to do whatever they want, wherever? Gimme a break. Seager Park & the property bordering it, ought to be protected & cherished ... not mowed down for huge townhomes. It's just disgusting. Putting townhomes there will totally change the atmosphere in Seager Park.

For Ken: The bailout of the developer is mentioned because said developer stated that he could not make a profit on the property unless he had it rezoned for multifamily. After going to the 5th ave meetings I think that he would need medium density zoning not just multifamily. Continuing with the bailout topic after rezoning he then needs several setback variances amongst other things. The building size is a 2 story however the buildings are 35' tall. From what I have seen of the plans for the duplexes (not mentioned in the article) they have about twice the square footage of my 4 bedroom 3 bath single family home.

To By Ken on December 2, 2008 2:02 PM:

By definition the request for variances & deviations are outside of the zoning ordinances.

The proposed project will loom 70 feet over Plank Road and Seager park(I am looking at the plans as I type).

It is not the original plan --- he purchased the property from the original owner with the statement that he was putting up single family homes. Then he turned to the R-2 request, which itself has changed some in the past three weeks.

We don't need to buy the property to have influence. We CAN insist that the Plan Commission & Council treat this developer the SAME WAY they did the others in the area and NOT allow the variances and deviations requested. [See "A Nearby Neighbor on December 2, 2008 2:01 PM", above for a good take on this.]

The requests do not fit into the character of the neighborhood, include more than a couple of safety issues, and per the City's own website will have up to a 20% negative affect on the home values in the immediate area.

Why not come out tomorrow night (dec 3rd, 7) and hear some of this stuff first hand?

We all learned from the Spring Green battle of the late 90s, that the City of Naperville can legally inject a commercial shopping center inside of a subdivision if it so desires.

Yes, they can do anything legally since they make the rules. Is it proper though? Is it in the best interest of the community?

The bottom line is if these people don't like what is coming, there is only one way to stop it. And that is to attend the City Council meetings in very large numbers and let them know you will vote them out if variances are granted to build multi-family instead of single homes as the Master Plan calls for.

There is no other way. It will not be an easy task as the city council has historically given the well connected Brestal Law Firm 99% of what they ask for.

The residents here need to study what happened at Spring Green if they want to have a chance of stopping this development. It will be no easy task.

In Spring Green, 12 subdivisions decided to unite and become Napergatians and rallied behind the Napergate Man and Activist Donna Rogers until the City finally conceded. Despite their large numbers and influence, they had to attend 7 city council meetings and watch the council flip flop under pressure every other session depending who was applying more pressure.

Mr. Brestal's Law Firm can put massive pressure on the City Council members to make anything legal since they in essence pass the rules, ordinances and laws. Only if you can put more pressure than this law firm, can you win before the City Council. The City Council will try to wear the residents out over time to see if they will go away. The residents need to be steadfast and not go away.

At least the Napergate Man exposed that this Brestal Law Firm was giving contributions to the city council members who were voting 99% in their favor. Those contributions stopped after the NGM exposed them. However, while I don't know, Brestal could have found other ways to take care of the city council members to keep their votes coming. Maybe he has golf outings for them. I don't know. I am speculating but trying to warn the residents that they have a ferocious battle in front of them and to be ready to fight.

And unfortunately, they are going to have to fight this battle without the Napergate Man and Activist Donna Rogers as to the best of my knowledge they are both retired. Good luck to those who will be standing up to City Hall. Be ready for a battle like you have never seen before. Be ready to be back stabbed the minute you miss a City Council meeting. Always show up, or the City Council will put the screws to you the first opportunity you don't show up. That is the unfortunate truth! Sorry to be the bearer of bad news....but at least you good folks know what you are up against!

I am one of those protesting and are living in a home that sits on land that was and still is similarly forested. Our rear setback is 50’ and the trees were not cut down. Our back yard is all trees and no grass. Other homes around the park have 50’ setbacks to preserve the park. Developers should follow suite to preserve the character of the neighborhood.

The planning commission is supposed to follow the guidelines of the 1998 East Sector Update to the Master Land Use plan. However the city planers are listening to the developer that says his plan is consistent with the neighborhood and he will preserve trees.

As many of the other comments stated the proposed development is not consistant with the neighborhood and the development will preserve at most 18 of the 209 trees.

If you are not familiar with the 1998 East Sector Update here are some key sections from it:

Future Land Use Goals – General Land Use
Most of the East Sector is composed of stable, developed areas. These areas contain homes, offices, commercial centers, and other buildings that have many, many years of life remaining in them. These structures significantly contribute to the "character" of the East Sector and the City as a whole. Infill development in older or underutilized parts of the East Sector and large new developments at the periphery of the sector will affect the character of the area. The goals and policies of this section are intended to protect the stable areas of the East Sector from insensitive development and redevelopment.

Goal 2.All redevelopment/infill developments shall be of a type and density that is compatible with the surrounding area.
The preservation of a site’s unique features, (including mature 'trees and other natural features. unusual topography, historic features, etc.) shall be encouraged as appropriate for all development.

Implications for Future Land Use - General Land Use
Compatible infill development and the preservation of existing stable neighborhoods are two of the major planning policies for the eastern portion of the City. All property in this sector should be protected from encroachments of incompatible developments in terms of scale, density, and/or land use. Infill development, redevelopment, and teardowns should be studied and development controls should be established in the form of a teardown/infill development policy to limit their negative impacts. Special attention should be given to sites with significant natural areas (including wetlands, large groves of mature trees, etc.) and/or historic structures located in them. Stormwater management issues must be considered for all development sites and measures to control stormwater runoff should be incorporated into the City's teardown/infill development policy as appropriate. Also, parcels located within Naperville's planning boundary hat have not been annexed to the City should be identified and analyzed along with relevant boundary and/or preannexation agreements to determine appropriate future land use classifications for them. The future land use projections for residential uses in these areas should specify density limits that reflect site constraints and adjacent land uses.

Also, a new ordinance has been passed that makes preservation of established landscaping a planned unit development objective. See below:

ORDINANCE NO. 08 - 149
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS) OF TITLE 6 (ZONING REGULATIONS)
OF THE NAPERVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE

6-4-3: DESIGN STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
11. Design: Planned unit developments shall be designed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Master Plan as contained in Section 1-11-1 of this Code, including the Building Design Guidelines.
11.1. Provision of the following features shall be considered toward fulfillment of the planned unit development intent and objectives:
11.1.2. Preservation of established landscaping, natural or cultural features.

The builder has not followed the East Sector Update or Ordinance 08-149. He has chosen to build 5 tightly clustered duplexes on the highest point of the property that is closest to Seager Park and covered with the most and largest trees. Naturally, the site was chosen to be the most attractive to buyers and not to preserve the character of the neighborhood or the trees.

Mature trees are very effective in stormwater management but since they will be removed and replaced by roofs and a road, underground vaults must be added in the lower area near Old Plank Rd. where homes currently are. Then he complains that his costs are so high he can’t cut down the density, which is 28% higher than required in the East Sector Plan.

The character of the surrounding community is single family homes and should stay that way. The developer purchased the property to make a buck and will not be around after the project is completed and apparently does not live in the immediate area. If the developer purchased property that was zoned single family with no intention of building single family homes then thats what you might call a gamble on his part to see if he could get the zoning changed.

What does matter are the opinions of the Naperville residents that live next to or will be affected by this development and most of those I have spoken to in Columbia Estates are not in favor of the proposed zoing change. In reality, the entire parcel should be park land.

I agree with you, Bruce.

It's too bad Naperville hates untouched areas - especially those with trees or any form of nature - that people might enjoy for something other than one-upping the neighbors. Seager Park has been used for many years as a family reunion spot, and also a wonderful summer camp area for children around here. Not that children around here go to camp any more, unless it's competitive in some way, but, you get the idea. There aren't many places around here like it anymore.

Naperville has had enough progress. Unfortunately, Naperville lets developers get rich quick, without accountability or consequence. Sadly, Ken is right. If the city allows the developer to go forward because he's met the legalities, and the owner of the property decides that's what he wants to with the property, that's the way the trees die in the forest.

It's too bad someone has not found some endangered form of native plant or animal life on the property.

SpringHill & Huffman Street benefit as a result of 3+ acres of previously uncontrolled storm water runoff will now be detained.

The variances sought reduce impervious surface area.

The homes are typical in size (3,000 sf x 2). Some homes take advantage of the topography and have walk-out basements.

This case stands on its own merits. That's why it has City staff support.

Since when is a 2 story townhome 70 feet tall? 35 feet per story? This sounds like another case of NIMBY drama and exaggeration.

I suppose the neighbors would whine if the builder decided to put in 7 1-2 million dollar houses also.

I love the fact that the people commenting that the surrounding neighbors are whining blah, blah, blah! They aren't the ones that will be negatively affected by this proposed property rezoning. Not only will it change the character of the neighboring subdivisons -all of which are single family homes, all with less square footage than the proposed duplexes, but it will deprive all of Naperville the pleasure of using Segar Park. I have lived on Plank Rd. for 15 years & the traffic has gotten increasingly heavier over the last few years. With these new duplexes & God knows how many more will follow, traffic will only get worse!! So, trees are going to be killed, a beautiful park will lose it's charm as will our neighborhood, traffic will get worse, subdivisions & homes will continue to get flooded all for a developer whose only interest is on getting as huge return on his investment & doesn't live around here & could care less about how his buildings will affect any of us

Mr. Conforti

Are you really telling us the reason why you want a variance to narrow the street is because you want to reduce the "impervious surface area"?

Care to comment on the fact that you will be creating a lot of impervious surface area with a road, sidewalks, driveways and homes where there is soil currently that absorbs rainfall?

And tell us how a front yard setback variance reduces the impervious surface area. Seems to me all it does is allow you to make the homes footprint bigger, thus adding to the problem not solving it.

Uh, Jackie, those of us who have been here since the 70's tend to feel the same way. Every farm field and woods destroyed for the sake of progress just brought more people that wanted development stopped as soon as they had their new house. Boo Hoo! Cry me a river.

Also, please explain how this development will deprive all of Naperville the pleasure of using Segar Park. It seems the park survived all the other development, so how is this different? Besides being yet another NIMBY issue with all the worn out tired old NIMBY reasons that are always brought out.

Oh, BTW, I bet you live in one of the subdivisions built by a greedy developer that added to the above mentioned problems, don't you? Come on, you can admit that you are part of the the problem. I won't tell.

Fred: "Since when is a 2 story townhome 70 feet tall? 35 feet per story? This sounds like another case of NIMBY drama and exaggeration."

Since there is a 36-foot slope on the property.

What do we really have here... yet another squeaky wheel for the park district to step in and buy the property for sole benefit of the immediate neighbors?

The developer better have some really deep pockets if he is going to proceed with a new development in this market and in full consideration of the current housing glut of for sale property and foreclosure properties. The developer better be fully prepared to cover the interest on the construction loan, the utilities, the insurance, and the property taxes for several years until all of these units are sold.

As for the trees. Let's remember that the park district trees start on their side of the property line. The trees on the other side of the property line are no ones but the property owners. I'm sick of listening to all of these do-gooder, bleeding heart liberal democrats who want to dictate what another property owner can do with their property. Yet do you ever notice that no one is ever trying to tell the do-gooders what to do with their property. Imagine who loud they would yell if someone dared to but into their private affairs.

Hey, here is a clue for all of the bleeding heart liberals out there... if you want more trees to look at try planting some more on your own property. Dig into your pocket and go buy a bunch. Hell make it a neighborhood event and get all of the houses on your block involved for all I care. Until you do that stop expecting to get to look at someone else's trees for free and then to have the balls to start acting like they are your own trees or that you deserve to have a say in the matter. You don't. So shut up and go plant your own tree.

I think a developer has to respect what the neighboring residents want and desire. He should not be able to shove things don't their throats. He should not be able to decrease the value of their homes with his grandiose ideas.

In Spring Green, a developer named Marcus tried to shove a shopping center in the middle of a residential neighborhood. He was taught a lesson he will never forget.

Due to the resistance of the surrounding subdivisions led by the Napergate Man, they made him pay dearly. He is not shy to admit that he lost millions of dollars on his development. It took him 8 years to sell 11 homes that he was forced to build instead of a shopping center in a very undesirable manner.

I hope the neighbors resist and fight tooth and nail if they don't like this project in their backyard. Spring Green indicates you can win if you resist very hard and never back down.

Anonymous at 5:22pm explains what is coming next very well.

It all goes back to a bunch of nimbys wanting to control property that isn't theirs. Claims are made to try to make the developer look bad (A two story house would also be 70' above Plank road, so what's the difference?), the whole neighborhood is going to be flooded, pig will fly, dogs and cats will mate, etc., etc.

In reality, a bunch of neighbors that got free use of the land as a buffer zone are now losing it because the owner decided it was time to put it to a use that made him money. Now the freeloaders want to dictate what happens to the land much as the Spring Green freeloaders did. Hopefully the city council has more backbone this time, and stands up to a bunch of nimbys who did not take the time to research what could happen to privately owned land near the property that they bought.

stands up to a bunch of nimbys who did not take the time to research what could happen to privately owned land near the property that they bought. Ken on December 3, 2008 1:50 AM

________________________________________________

I don't particularly care for Ken's bluntness, but the fact remains that the land is currently owned by someone, and zoned for something! The problem I would have is if the builder wanted to change the zoning which I do not believe they are asking for? I've been involved in a similar battle before and we eventually learned that it isn't a question of IF the land was going to be developed, but WHEN.

An initial proposal came in surrounding my subdivision at the time (Trails of Country lakes). The initial proposal called for multi family homes (condo's and townhouses) and was immediately fought by my subdivision. The original builder pulled out but was quickly followed by a second developer who proposed an even greater density, but still conformed to the zoning. This second developer cleared the land and built the condo's.

My point is that the original developers density was much lower and would have been better for our neighborhood had we not fought it (of course all in hindsight now).

My recommendation to the group on Plank road is to seriously consider what "might" go there if this initial proposal is scrapped. Builders do not buy land just to allow others to enjoy its beauty. I understand the passion of the Spring Green people in the past, but the issue there was more of a commercial development rather than choices between multi family was it not?

Ken--Seager Park is not in my backyard.  But I do think that the kids of Naperville need more than barren soccer fields to develop into the kind of human beings we'll continue to be proud of. 
This developer can build what he originally planned (see his website that advertises wooded single family sites) without destroying the character and viability of Seager Park.  He is trying to fit more on this property than reasonable--that's why he's asking for narrow streets, significantly reduced setbacks, buildings that loom to 18' from the park. 
Maybe you should spend more time in nature, get some perspective.

Fred,

Perhaps you should get some data before you trash your neighbors, my friend.

If you did, you would find that the buildings as drawn are 35 feet tall [plus additional chimney stack/etc structure] on TOP of a 36 foot elevation OVER Plank Road and Seager Park's frontage, east side, north east section, and midsection.

Gosh, if you and Ken spent less time calling the rest of us names and more time doing a minimum of research, getting some data, maybe even go online at the Plan Commission website and reading the supplied packages, you might have enough knowledge to be dangerous!

To Anonymous (12/2 11:51PM)--

Great idea--I'll buy a bunch of Oak saplings, wait 300 years, and then enjoy the trees that replace those that Mr. Conforti is so willing to destroy.

Get informed--we aren't asking the Park District to buy anything. Just expecting the developer to respect the same constraints that have been placed on all of the homeowners already residing in this neighborhood--a 50' buffer between their buildings and the park.

Fred--
Wasn't here when my subdivision was built, but maybe there were concerned neighbors who held the developer to the city's standards. Maybe that's why my street isn't 3' narrower than code, why my driveway is long enough to hold more than 1 compact car length, why I have a backyard. If so, to those concerned neighbors--THANKS!

Is this development the reason the City had to grab the goat farm on the south side of Plank to handle the flooding that will be caused by this project?

How much will the City (homeowners) pay for flood control project costs?

Can this be counted as a subsidy for this developer?

For a nearby neighbor

#1 Yes, the reduced roadway width reduces impervious surface . . . why does everything have to be a conspiracy with you?

#2 Any development will produce impervious surface. The items you mention above are requirements not options.

#3 By reducing the front yard setback the concrete drivewys become shorter "nothing more, nothing less." You can spend your own dime arguing soil absorption rates with the City civil engineer but I can save you some money . . . this property is a forest floor with a steep slope, not a flat cornfield. It absorbs very little storm water. Most runs off to springHill and onto Huffman St.

Stop looking for the conspiracy theory Ms Edie is leading you into. We offered to come to her meetings way back in September in order to have a rational discussion of all of these concerns. Instead, she chose to step up her inane and slanderous website. I am unfamiliar with the Napergate situation but I don't see any similarities to a shopping mall.

As for Jackie above; nobody is trying to force anything on you. This plan has been developed by Naperville land planners, civil engineers, architects . . . all with cooperation of City Staff. Please reread my previous entry . .. . it stands on its own merits.

Anonymous 12/3/08 8:55am, I don't live near Seager park either, but have attended many family events there. A property owner is not going to change the park into barren soccer fields just by developing his land. Granted, it will ruin some of the ambiance of the park, but one has to expect that in a park placed inside a town. If you expect to see nothing but nature, you have to go someplace like a state or national park. To expect landowners not to develop their properties just to keep a nice view is wrong. I have seen many town homes tastefully built into the surroundings, and feel that these would be no more of an encroachment then seven mcmansions.

Anonymous 12/03/08 9:04am, you still have not explained the difference between a two story house being built there as opposed to a two story town home. Both would hold the same grade, so your argument is moot. As for the name calling, I suppose you could consider the acronym nimby a name, but it is a well accepted term referring to those who don't want something built in their 'backyard', and applies here. Maybe if you were not so thin skinned, you might look beyond the nimby label and see how it applies to people who want to take away property owner rights just because they live in the area.

To: By Frederick P. Conforti, Architect on December 2, 2008 7:22 PM

Freddo,

Perhaps you missed you bio classes in H.S., but 3.14 acres of mature trees and dirt will do a SUPERIOR job of handling rainwater versus your underground crypts. The tipping point based on land size and slope appears to be at around 3 inches of rain in a 120 minute period (a volume we often reach in these here parts).

When we hit those levels, Plank Road AND Springhill will pay the price in flooding. Also, given that the winter melt-offs mimic rainfall, I fully expect that in the March timeframe we will have flooding and refreezing on Plank.

To: By Trails of Country Lakes on December 3, 2008 8:26 AM

Yes, he IS asking for a zoning change and for several variances and deviations to that zoning change.

He wants a 20% decrease in the required front yard setbacks.

He wants a 33% decrease in the required right-of-way.

He wants a 28% increase in the City-stated optimum density.

He wants an 11% decrease in the requires treet width

He wants to put his buildings 18 feet off of the Seager Park property line, though the current subdivision, Columbia Estates, has always been held to a 50 foot setback (even in recent remodeling efforts).

There is more, but this is enough for now. Suffice it to say that all we really want is for Mr Conforti to be held to the same standards that the rest of us were as we built and remodeled.

We are merely asking the City to stick with the the zoning rules, ordinances and guidelines that have worked to protect property values in Naperville for so long.

To Ken and all --- if that is your description of NIMBY and something to be reviled, than I pity your inability to analyze data versus emotion.

Mr. Conforti

No conspiracy theories here. I just have to say I'm astounded that you are actually stating that the variance being sought are only because of your desire to reduce run off. I would hope the storage vaults would be sufficient to retain the necessary amounts. If you need variances in addition to the vaults to achieve that, then I think you have some serious fundamental problems with the plan.

Bottom line: I simply can not accept your claim that the variances are need so as to reduce the impervious surface area. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It seems clear to me the variance are to allow you to put too many structures onto the property.

I will also gently request that you refrain from attacking residents. I've read the agenda packet and these are my own thoughts. No one else's. I have referred to the residents website: http://www.pc1740.com/ for information, and I have not found it to be in any way inane or slanderous as you claim.

People in this town care about how Naperville grows and develops. That is a very good thing. No one is telling to you can't build, nor are they being slanderous by simply for voicing their concerns. But when you come in asking for a host of variances, you have to be prepared to defend the necessity of those variance. I personally don't see that you have done that.

I think the criticism that you are attempting to get the city to bail you out by granting you these variances so you can build too many buildings on a difficult property is a valid point. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to build on the property, only that you have to accept the properties limitations, and design it accordingly.

To: Frederick P. Conforti, Architect:

As a fellow professional, I am embarrassed for you for taking part in this type of public discussion/ forum.

I am not sure your client would approve.

Naperville is a community consisting of great single family areas. This area should simply be single family platted in the same manner as adjacent single family houses. It is wrong to increase the density to build tennaments (the current proposal). It would also be wrong to insist that houses had to be developed as 2 1/2 acre estates.

Unfortunately, due to poor City leadership, the enitre town is potmarked with multi family housing. Drive down Naper Boulevard south of 75th STreet. The farms that did not sell out were developed later as townhouses squeezed between single family houses. You think you were in Joliet instead of Naperville. It is a shame that these developments were ever allowed.

The appropriate action, a permanent moritorium on any developoment other than single family houses. Period. No townhouses, duplexes, apartments. Let developers of these products go to Aurora, Elgin, Joliet where they like this development.

One other matter. These projects have no green space. Why? Because the City lets them pay cash in lieu of donating the green space. Again, a moritorium on this practice. There is no other land around for the City to buy. Make the developer donate the requisite green space on their land or provide the land acceptable to the park and school districts elsewhere. Seager Park could be expanded if the developer were required to donate actual land.

And if the developers do not like this idea, then let them petition to the County to develop their properties with well and septic. They won't. They would be limited to one acre single family houses.

It is too bad the City already suffers from gang fights at Naperville North caused by the residents of multifamily housing. NO MORE!!!!

I sense a discriminatory--dare I say racist--tone in the post above by "Opposed to Changing the Community". As a former resident of multi-family housing in Naperville who has always been a courteous and law-abiding citizen, I am offended by the stereotype.

Two-family and multi-family housing is appropriate in some areas of town. The subject property is not one of them.

I have to agree. I live in a condo myself and I've never been in a gang fight. A lot of your public servants in this community have to live in multi-family housing if they want to live in the community they work in, because houses are too expensive, not just in Naperville but in the surrounding communities as well.

I'll also agree that the culprit here is not multi-fmaily per-se. But it needs to be in the right places, and it needs to be of an appropriate density and hopefully include some open space.

There has always been a natural give and take regarding any kind of development in Naperville. A developer attempted to put a hugely dense development behind the Children's Museum some years ago. It was turned down by the city and another developer came in and did what I consider a very nice job developing that parcel again with multi-family units but of a more reasonable density.

Another concern is of course we are getting awfully congested, in the downtown area especially. If we allow too much additional multi-family developments, the traffic will get exponentially worse for everyone. This doesn't mean we shouldn't do any more but that we need to realize the impact it has on streets that are too congested already.

Multi-family housing tends to bring much needed 'affordable' housing.

With all the talk about wallets being pinched and people unable to pay bills, being laid off, retirements going away, and not being able to afford to stay in their homes I would have thought some more affordable housing would allow many to stay in this town in the long run if they had to downsize.

Would the units be cheaper in price than the surrounding homes?

Another comment on the Plank Road duplexes:
Besides the infringement on Seagar Park by this proposal, has anyone taken the time to look beyond this "one" development? There are three more large lots west of the proposed duplexes that will likely fall prey to the developer over the next few years if the current proposal is approved. Will the city then allow them to add more and more duplexes and contribute even more to flooding and overcrowding? The land across the street (south side of Plank) where there is currently an engineering company and an auto repair shop were identified by the developer's attorney as being on leases that will expire in less than 10 years. Will this area be in the developer's sights for more duplexes? When that area falls prey to the develper, will the houses on the same side of the street also become part of the developer's plans? The bottom line is that the current development proposal will not be the last one on Plank Road. The city simply cannot be short-sighted on this and think the current proposed development is the end. Besides all of the flooding concerns relative to developments along Plank Road, it is already a thoroughfare that does not need to see an increase in traffic due to adding more and more high density housing.

To: By Frederick P. Conforti, Architect on December 2, 2008 7:22 PM,

The similarties to Spring Green which was a huge battle fought by a group known as the Napergatians are very clear.

The Master Plan in both cases called for single family homes. Variances were asked for in both cases. One for a gas station inside of a subdivision and one for dense multi-family.

The Master Plan has to be adhered to. Variances should not be given for reducing setbacks to the street or the park.

In the Spring Green Case, Mr Brestal asked to put a gas station and then a shopping center in between 2 subdivisions. The city council initially in their infinite wisdom voted 7-2 to let him do that. The Napergate Man wondered how in the world they could be so resident unfriendly. He went to the Dupage Complex, dug up some records, and found out the Brestal Law Firm was making huge contributions to the city council members and they were in return, paying him back by voting for 99% of anything he proposed....good or bad! 1% of his projects were temporarily rejected to portray an image that he did not have the city council in his rear pocket.....kind of like for public relations consumption.

The residents need to understand if this developer has the Brestal Law Firm as his attorneys, they are in for a real battle. In the Spring Green battle the city council voted in his favor 3 or 4 times but the pressure of the Napergatians combined with bad publicity in Napergate ads forced the city council to reverse itself each and every time. Only after the city council realized that the Napergatians were not going away, did they force the developer to build 11 single family homes which can be seen on the property today on the NW corner of Hobson and Naper. Blvd. Just like the Master Plan called for. The Napergatians forced the city council to honor the Master Plan. They did not even let the developer have size variances so he can build 13 homes. Only 11 homes and he took a bath financially on the project....a huge bath as he built less than pretty homes and it took him nearly a decade to sell them.

Only if the Columbia Estates and Seagar Park residents do what the Napergate Man, the Napergatians and Spring Green Folks did, do they have a chance to win. They need to fight hard and dig into county records. Check on golf outings or whatever. Ask around town what relations the Brestal Law Firm currently has with city council members. Has Mr. Brestal paid for any city council member for example to take a vacation down south of the country where I heard he owns a second home? Just a question and not an accusation???

The Napergate Man was not afraid to confront Attorney Bill Brestal right in City Hall and accuse him of only caring about his WALLET and literally infuriating him. This is an attorney who claimed he loved Naperville but wanted to put a shopping center and gas station inside and between 2 beautiful subdivisions. He called that love. We called it greed. He was being paid well by developer Markus and just tried to get him anything he wanted to enrich him and himself while shoving it down the residents throats. We asked Mr. Brestal if he would approve of a gas station in his back yard and he had no answer. He walked away during a break in the city council meeting.

Don't be fooled by Mr. Bestal and the Brestal Law Firm if he/they tell you he/they care about you. Mr. Brestal does not care about the residents. He only cares about his WALLET as the Napergate Man discovered and told him to his face in City Chambers.

And as someone blogged earlier this group needs to show up in large numbers. If the city council succeeds in tiring them with tabling after tabling, the minute they don't show up, they will give this developer, architect and law firm all they want.

It is called the Establishment taking care of the Establishment! Be careful folks! Be smart folks Be diligent folks! Don't be fooled by public relations comments. As the famous Napergate Man once said, "Keep your eyes on the ball."

Congratulations to the residents along Plank Road for their victory last night, and my appreciation to the Plan Commission who agreed that the proposal just wasn't the right one for that property.

Lets hope Mr. Conforti chooses to redesign his proposal for something more appropriate, rather than trying to push his current plan through City Council. If he does try to stay with the current plan, people such as myself who live nearby will start getting residents in their area to join the campaign against it.

Yes, congratulations to another bunch of NIMBYs taking away a private property owner's rights. I find this quote from the article very telling:

Several of the speakers made it clear that they viewed the private property as public.
"In the minds of residents, this is a de facto portion of Seagar Park," Swininoga said. Jane Pickens said "we need to persevere it as part of the park"

In other words, these NIMBYs want more free park area to use at a private property owners expense.

If I were the owner, I would put up a chain link fence with no trespassing signs posted every ten feet. I would then cut down all trees under 4" inch in diameter, and apply for the permits required to clear cut the rest of the lot under the economic hardship portion of the tree preservation ordinance. I would do my best, under the law's constraints, to make sure that these freeloaders did not use my property anymore.

From the comfort of my LazyBoy on a cold snowy night, I squirmed in embarrassment for the lady and her husband who started the website. After months to get their thoughts together, not one, but both of them, got the hook from Brown.

I would hire the guy with the snazzy powerpoint presention in a heartbeat the next time I need to distract people away from the obvious. He was great up until the point where he pushed the idea that parking under your home in a side load condition is somehow a desireable feature. I thought I saw the attorney drooling as the powerpoint guy showed how much more area around the Park was going to become condos! Please, you can cry wolf once, but after the second exaggeration you start to lose your credibility. That guy was so far over the top I don't think he beleved his own photoshopping.

To the contrary, I thought the attorney laid out a reasonable arguement and it was repeatedly backed by staff's comments. Question: how in the world does Gustin defend her denial by stating that flooding in SpringHill should be corrected before further development is allowed not ten minutes after the City engineer said that this project is HELPING the flooding situation. Regarless of what side of this development you are on, she demonstrated pure incompetence as a plan commission member with that comment. You do not trump your own Sr. engineer in public.

To: By Ken on December 4, 2008 2:50 PM

Besides being data ignorant, I guess it is good you are not the owner. The smaller trees have already been cleared --- the argument with the Plan Commission is about the large ones. Of course, if you spent the time to show up and be useful, you would already know that.

In fact, if you spent any time on research instead of being a general lump you would know that the PC turned down the request because it did NOT MEET the 6 requirements for rezoning.

That's right, bucko ---- there are actually written rules on such things.

In fact, there are rules on what you can build and where you can build it. Those rules are there to protect all of us. The specific rules were NOT MET.

Also, and here are those pesky facts and rules again ------ he did not meet the requirements to be granted a PUD development.

Wow!!!

Ken, you seem to be blindly supporting a development that grossly falls short of the set rules and ordinances of the town you claim to live in. With your general dislike for the town, perhaps you should think of moving?

By the way , and again, here is that data thing --- if you spent any time to look at the plans [re:trees], you would see that your petulant little tirade about cutting down all the trees, not just under 4" in diameter, would be pretty equal to the planned development.

Per the city staff answer to a question last night, 8 trees would remain standing after the development is built.

Wouldn't you feel better if you actually went into these wars of wit with at least a little ammo?

Funny you should mention the city engineer. He stumbled quite terribly through his answers and kept coming back to "We are Naperville, this is DuPage Cty, and we know what we are doing".

If you talk to folks in Springhill, you will find thet neither the City nor DuPage Cty know what they are doing with this flood plain.

Thier incompetence is glaring here, and Gustin was well within her right to tell the engineer to fix Springhill before another development is OK'd.

Talk is fine, but action id "finer"! The folks of Springhill have been waiting two decades for the City to fix this cluster, and at this point everyone is tired of hearing "We are good and we are working on it!"

Of course, you may have missed some of this discourse from your lazy-boy.

I will pipe in here and speak to the comment posted on 12/4/08 @2:50pm:

If you are going to quote someone, you should get the quote correct. You wrote that I said "In the minds of residents, this is a de facto portion of Seagar Park". This is incorrect.

My actual quote was in the context of discussng the 5th requirement for a zoning change. It went as follows:"

"Public maps of the area include the property in question under the heading of “Seager Park”. This indicates it is a de facto part of Seager Park in the minds of home purchasers and as such it’s existence is well-utilized as an established value-enhancer to the surrounding homes..." Seven commissioners agreed with this statement by vote, and three by specific declaration. I will add that the comment took into account the facts presented by the developer and google, yahoo!, etc. Nothing more, nothing less.

In looking at the quote and its context, it is clear it was a reference to tax collections and home values. I will add that I also answered, when asked about suggested usage of the land, that I thought Duplexes were fine IF they were within all codes and regulations, which they were not.

Next question?

Realize the the Plan Commission members have to weigh all the various factors in making their decision. The developer was asking for a number of variances, including narrowing the road and narrowing the Right of Way, and a reduction of the front yard setbacks. Why? Because he wants to stuff 5 fairly large footprint duplex's on a property that's too small to accept them under Naperville zoning regulations.

Variances should not be approved simply to allow a developer to circumvent these regulations in order to pad his wallet. Adding to the difficulty is the lot he is attempting to develop is a lovely old growth woods with a diagonal ravine running through it. If the developer was displaying some real sensitivity and appreciation for that fact, and say as a result of him trying to save as many trees, and make as little an impact on the forest preserve as possible, he asked for a reasonable variance to accomplish just that,I suspect he would have had much better luck.

As proposed, there are also some real concerns regarding how the Right Of Way variance to remove the parkway and sidewalk on the West side of the street and the roadways placement hard against the western property line, will affect the two property owners who share that property line. The developers council Russ Whittaker was trying pretty hard to make one of the property owners the bad guy for not selling them, or swapping, some of their property to make it easier for the developer to get all 5 units and the road on the parcel. They declined as they have every right to do.

Even worse, is the potential for these property owners to be severely impacted by future development by the second adjacent property owner who, as it was presented, could elect to locate the missing parkway and sidewalk on his property and then place who knows how many units on that property utilizing this undersized road. Problem is then the property owners in front could potentially loose some of their property by being forced to allow an utility easement on their property for these new structures. It's a mess really, and is complicated by some very strangely shaped lots.

The last thing is the developer was asking for a PUD (Planned Unit Development) designation. He needed this to have the flexibility to even think of placing the five duplex's on the property. Problem is, as a number of Plan Commissioners commented, for a number of technical reasons this development doesn't qualify for a PUD designation. This is a real problem for the developer.

I'll close with the observation that if anyone attended or watched the meeting has any knowledge of how the Dommermuth, Brestal, Cobine and West firm operates, they will have watched classic DBC&W strategy. Namely attack the residents, and marginalize them by claiming the residents are not willing to work with them. I was pretty shocked that Whittaker had the gall to actually claim that the residents were engaging in strong arm tactics trying to get signatures on their petition. The problem is, sometimes the tactic works. A long time ago I saw Bill Brestal spin some unsuspecting residents around till they made an unfortunate comment and then he killed them with it. Any residents dealing with them have to be very guarded with what they say to them. If these residents did decline to talk to them I can't say I blame them. And a word of caution to the Plank Rd. residents: Do not let them get under your skin or respond to their provocative comments. Let Whittaker try to play the martyr solo. Just be sure in any future conversations, or presentations, you address these accusations in a clam and rationale manner.

The fact that the projects Architect, Mr. Conforti, in this very blog called the residents website "inane and slanderous" just makes them look that much worse. Make sure you give the Council Members a copy of it if they decide to try to get CC to approve this.

Note----- the last post commenting on my statements to the Plan Commission was by me. For some reason I my posts often get posted as "anonymous" instead of to me --- Bob S.

Anonymous 12/4/08 10:42 pm, you are right. I didn't look at the plans, I didn't go to the meeting, and all my information came from the Sun articles. Here's why I did none of the above: I don't care about the plans, or do I care to hear a bunch of NIMBYs cry about how the character of their neighborhood will be changed. I care that the NIMBYs want to keep the land as they want it without any financial investment. Eight trees remaining is eight to many if the property owner wants them gone.

It is the same as when the NMBYs wanted the city to deny a demolition permit for an old, beat up house, and force the owner to restore it. I'm tired of NIMBYs getting their way and using the city to take away the property owner's rights. Personally, I see no reason why a government entity can regulate how many trees should stay on the property. In my opinion, any property owner should be able to clear cut their property if they wish. If you and your NIMBY friends want a wooded lot to stay vacant, buy it.

Now we have a planning council that turned down a good plan, from what I read about it, just because a bunch of NIMBYs want a free parcel of land to use, and the council did not have the backbone to stand up to them. Next the NIMBYs will be whining for the Park District to by that land too.

Bob S., if you have an objection to the quote I listed, take it up with the Sun. That is what they printed. Your whole quote makes it worse. Obviously, you want to steal a property owners ability to use his land just because a map maker mislabeled it, and because that mislabeling makes your property look more valuable. The fact that council members agreed with that is appalling.

Both of you miss the point when you say that the proposed development does not meet zoning requirements. That is obviously why you NIMBYs get any say in the matter, because the developer was requesting variances, which is their legal right.

I just wish that the same idiot judges that legalized tree counting would legalize the developers ability to recoup lost revenue from the freeloaders preventing them from getting the most value out of their land. I wonder how many NIMBY groups would lose their stomach for stealing property owner's rights if it actually cost them more than a couple of nights at a city council meeting.

I believe what I said at the council meeting has been miss understood.
My topic at the Planning Council meeting was surrounding "Property Values". My reference was to an economic principal used in
appraisal called "Anticipation". We asked park users,is that(pointing at the undeveloped portion of PC#1740)part of the park.
They generally had an affirmative response.
The perception of loss of park decreases home values.
Thank you for bringing the mis-perception to my attention. It a complicated principal to present in a time pressed environment.
Jane

To Tim

Who said gang fights are caused by people of different races? I think YOU played the race card.

A town should zone its area. If a community wants to be only single family houses like Golf Illinois, that is their perrogative. If an adjacent land owner does not like the policy of the town, let him annex to another town or maintain the land as county zoning.

This land owner cannot annex to another municipality since it is surrounded by the City of Naperville. So if they do not like the Naperville R1 designation for their land, then they can appeal to the County for the zoning. Oops. The default zoning for their property is one acre estates. And they can only build to that "density" if the County Health department will issue a well and septic permit if the land can support it.

In short, these land owners have NO RIGHTS in Naperville. They are asking to join the club, they have to follow the rules of the club.

And my previous comment about all of this in fill multi family housing is that it destroys the common nature of a neighborhood. Imagine building a 100 story office tower in the middle of a residential street. It is wrong to "squeeze in" townhouses in what are otherwise single family districts. Even Tim seems to support this comment.

Per the American Community Survey for 2007, almost one third of the 50,000 residences in Naperville were multi family of some type. Over half of these units were rental. This seems like enough. Why build more? The only place that this would make sense is around the commuter stations like the higher class developments in Arlington Heighs, LaGrange and Elmhurst. Let's not replicate Harvey!!!!!!!

One final note, in trying to find out the housing stock in Naperville, I came accross this socialistic "Affordable Housing Study"

http://www.naperville.il.us/emplibrary/AI%20for%20Web.pdf

The reason this study was undertake and needs to be considered is because the City of Naperville takes Federal Money (CDGB). DON'T TAKE THE MONEY. Federal programs destroyed Chicago, they will destroy Naperville next.

In short, the people of Naperville should control Naperville. Not developers, lawyers or the Federal government.

To: By Ken on December 5, 2008 12:50 AM

So, Ken, you posted "...you are right. I didn't look at the plans, I didn't go to the meeting, and all my information came from the Sun articles. Here's why I did none of the above: I don't care about the plans..."

If I read it correctly you don't care abut any of the facts as you already know what is right?

If so, it must be nice to be so certain you know all there is to know! Got any stock tips? I could use them!

A few folks have called to mention this blog is beginning to take on an “aggressive” tone. I think we can all agree that “civil discourse” is the best route in this effort.

As we are all neighbors of sorts, let’s keep in mind that the developer, when you get down to basics, is just a guy trying to make a buck; his legal rep is just a local firm doing their job of representing their client’s interests; and those opposing the efforts of the development are just people who want rules followed and the character of their neighborhood protected. All else is just pomp and chafe.

We will all probably be seeing each other again in a few weeks, so the more civil we are the more quickly we should be able to get to a resolution on this matter.

Pax.

Bob,

I hope you and your neighbors are up for the next six months + of City Council meetings as they try to slip this one through.

If you turn out in large numbers, expect the attorney for the project to receive multiple continuances while they wear you down.

Someone at your association may want to get written pledges from all of the candidates running for council on how they will vote on this project if elected or re-elected.

Yes, that is what happened in Spring Green. That is the unfortunate strategy of they city council which is to wear out the residents and give the developer what ever his heart desires.

They could not wear the Napergatians down in Spring Green so the city finally surrendered. But it was a many years battle that involved as many as 8 council votes with tons of flip floping.

The Napergatians found a way to get stronger and increase their numbers in Spring Green with the elapse of time. It was an epic battle.

I hope Seager Park residents are up to the challenge and can be as steadfast and determined as the Napergatians were in SG.

It should surprise no one that there are "Tree Huggers" in the area surrounding Seager Park. I take that term as a compliment. We self selected, when we bought our home and voted for trees, with our investment in the neighborhood. My backyard is wooded and I like it that way. My husband and I have planted extra trees. I also don't mind the term "Nimby" (not in my backyard). If we care about our homes and neighborhoods it is important to defend them against what we feel is an assault. That is what makes a neighborhood safe, good, and desired.

I am still deeply concerned about the present layout for "The Woods Along Old Plank Road" I would like to see some creative solutions
for saving at least some of the larger older trees in the proposed subdivision and making sure that the trees in Seager Park are not harmed. Human beings need to think very carefully destroying something that could not be repaired or replaced in our lifetime.

We have creative people in Naperville. Lets see some creative posts with some inventive solutions to this dilemma. Could the buildings be repositioned to allow a grove of the older trees to stand?
How large a tree can be moved? Could a dedicated fund be set up by the builder or subdivision to make sure the trees in the park can get the best care available if they are damaged by construction, PH changes, or water flow changes. Sometimes that damage takes a while to manifest itself.
Come on let us see your idea's. There must be a better solution.

Have always thought that a prior comment about putting 10LBS of stuff into a 5LB bag pretty much sums up the problem. I have some family that lives in Bartlett in a single family cul-de-sac with 5 houses spread around the end. On any holiday there is no where to park. Even on most other weekends when friends and family visit its likely there will be no parking spots. The sardine can design on Plank Rd. is no different.

If the proposed Plank Rd. development contains a narrow road with only parking on one side of the street where would visiting friends and relatives park? There could EASILY be 25-30 additional vehicles and there is no parking on Plank Rd. Guess they could park in Springhill or Columbia Estates?

Perhaps the property is not well suited for what the developer would like to accomplish and asking for variances that will allow a 5LB bag to be used instead of 10LB is not in keeping with the existing housing in the immediate area. The developer needs a better plan than what has been presented so far.

One last thought about Naperville in general is that when national news magazines rate our community the best or one of the best places to live in the entire country that to me is a big deal. I would like to see that continue because its good for everyone's property values. However, the idea that every vacant lot should be crammed with some kind of new housing is not reflective of the Naperville I moved to 24 years ago. Development should reflect the surrounding community that already exists including park land.

I would like to make a correction to my prior entry Dec.10,2008 3:14 PM It should read.
Human beings need to think very carefully before destroying something that could not be repaired or replaced in our lifetime.

However, the idea that every vacant lot should be crammed with some kind of new housing is not reflective of the Naperville I moved to 24 years ago. Development should reflect the surrounding community that already exists including park land.
Bill S.

This is just another way of saying you have no problem with taking away a property owner's rights. Even if the developer puts in what current zoning allows, you will still protest because you have lost free use of land you do not own.

Ken,

A property owner has property rights only within the limitations of local zoning and building ordinances. Just as you or I can't build whatever we want on our property, neither can Mr. Conforti there. This owner was asking PUD status, and for a number of very significant variances (for the sole reason in my mind, to stuff too many structures on this land). In addition, and most troubling, if it had been approved as presented, some of those variances look to create an extremely adverse effect on the property owners to the west which isn't going to be allowed in this town.

Had he come in with a clean proposal, the outcome would have been different.

So needless to say there are legitimate reasons for the Plan Commission to have rejected this proposal 7-2.

Let's solve the problem by cutting down all the trees in the sector bordered by Naper Blvd, Columbia, Ogden Ave. and Chicago Ave. Trees are a gnarly nuisance anyway: They block the view, prevent us from watching sunbathing neighbors, provide homes for pests, and drop icky crud all over cars, decks, treehouses, skylights and playsets. When birds eat tree berries, they bomb me with purple poop. Get rid of the obstructive trees so we can all wave to each other and make nice. Then Mr. Conforti could add a couple of tennis courts and a swimming pool...and even round off his cul-de-sac!

Does anyone know why this is even going to the council?

Doesn't it "die" once the plan commission votes "No!"?

The Plan Commission is an advisory board that has absolutely no power. All they can do is recommend. Of course the city council takes their recommendations into consideration and/or under advisement.

A few months ago the Plan Commission in their infinite wisdom decided to close Oxford Rd. that connects Baily Rd to 75th St. It was a road that has been in existence for a half a century or more. The residents protested but the Plan Commission voted unanimously to close it. Thank God it was just an advisory recommedation!

When it went before the City Council, the CC Members were much wiser and stated they are not in the business of closing functional roads down for no reason and overruled the commission.

In that Spring Green War, the Plan Commission flip flopped as well as the City Council. However the fip flopping by the Plan Commission had no serious weight and the Napergatians pretty much ignored them. The real and only decision was being made by the City Council. There you would find the Napergatians in large numbers sometimes overflowing the chambers.

Repeating, the Plan Commission can only recommend and has no real power. But keep in mind if the City Council is feeling lazy or wants to end a session and leave in 54 minutes, they could conceivably rubber stamp everything brought before them by the Plan Commission.

Anyway, I am thankful they did not rubber stamp the death of Oxford Rd. I commend the City Council for being alert and doing the right thing that evening..

Seager Park residents must understand the true war starts in the City Council. Bill Brestal and former Council Man Kevin Gallagher have much influnence in the City Council. Show up in large numbers just like the Napergatians, speak loudly and clearly, and remind them who voted them in office. Everything should go well! The City Council responds very well to MASSIVE and ORGANIZED RESIDENTIAL PRESSURE. That is the only time they will go against a developer or his attorneys.

Anonymous,

No, it does not die. The Plan Commission can only make a recommendation. City Council is free to vote as they choose.

I believe Councilman Fieseler is on record saying that he believes that council should follow Plan Commission recommendations unless there are extraordinary factors at play.

Still, City council rather famously approved the Library parking deck after the Plan Commission rejected it, making for some hard feeling on the side of PC members. It's not uncommon for council to overrule Plan.

Nearby Neighbor, Bob S.'s comments show that he believes the lot should stay vacant just because it is near a park. The two comments that I have posted have the same theme of taking away a property owner's rights whether that owner uses the approved zoning or tries to get the zoning changed. As I said, I believe he and you would have protested even if the developer did not request any zoning changes.

Ken,

I can only speak for myself, but I do agree with you that the property owner has the right to develop the property. But I also think the proposal has a number of fatal flaws that will doom it. The adjacent property owners have a right to not have legal encumbrances placed on their property as a result of Mr. Conforti's development.

The interesting question is does he try to re-design the development or try to ram it through Council as is.

Another message to Ken

I agree with you regarding property rights. The owners of the property in question have the right to develop the property as an unincorporated parcel pursuant to its current zoning of one unit to the acre subject to the site have suitable well water and soil conditions to support a septic field. Three acres, 3 units. That is all. Nobody is stopping them.

They can also go to the County and get the property rezoned to a higher density. However, the County DOES NOT have to grant them that density. Moreover, it is VERY UNLIKELY that County Health regulations would allow more than one unit per acre, if that, based on the septic field.

The owners alternative is to seek PERMISSION (that's right, this is not a "right" rather a "privilege") to annex to the City of Naperville. The "default" zoning is R-1, single family houses. Moreover, most of the surrounding houses are also R-1. But remembmer, the City of Naperville DOES NOT have to annex the property, ONLY IF THEY WANT IT.

Lastly, a land owner can ask for MORE such as this person. Denying such a request is not taking away his land rights. Rather, it is not granting him a request to which he is not entitled.

Unfortunately, the City of Naperville has allowed such INCOMPATABLE zoning elsewhere in the City. It is a MAJOR MISTAKE. It lowers the value of surrounding houses to all of our detriment. Unless, of course Ken, you are a supporter of lower housing values (a renter?!?!?!).

In short, DO NOT MISREPRESENT PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Mr.Tee,
Not to mention: windfall limbs (sometimes large enough to make a
dent in your roof), those pesky leaves, pods, burrs, cones, and seeds.
berries that give your concrete a purple polka-dot/tie dye design, neighbors who want you to trim and cut down everything, wood roaches,
field mice, snakes, spiders etc. The Park District is going to need arborist, pest control and legal advice on retainer to deal with their new neighbors.

I detect a bit of tongue in cheek from Mr. Tee. Thank you for making the point that this is a poor site selection for maintenance free condo's.
AJ

Opposed to Change, the property owner is within his rights to annex to Naperville, and to request zoning variances that have been granted to other property owners. You are the one misrepresenting property rights by saying that the owner is only entitled to what the county zoning gives him. The owner is entitled to all he can get. You and others that should have little say in the matter are the ones helping to steal the owner's rights. Master plans for cities change with the times, and you should not stand in the way unless you want to buy the property and donate it to the park.

All that aside, the view that Bob S. keeps putting forth is that the property should stay vacant because he likes it that way. That should only happen if Bob S. buys the property and decides to keep it as a vacant lot.

Ken,

Property owners can ask for the moon. The governement does NOT have to give them ANYTHING. Naperville DOES NOT have to ANNEX any land. The property owner CANNOT sue to force annexation and rezoning. The property owner cannot sue to get water and sewer service. His only "RIGHTS" today are what the County zoning and health deparment regulations will allow. PERIOD.

I do believe in land use planning. There are many aspects like setbacks that would prevent a road to be within 30 feet of a persons side property line such is being proposed. I also think that like property uses should be maintained. It is wrong to build a pig farm next to single family uses (this owner could do this if he still has County agricultural zoning, but I think it was changed to County estate residential).

Spot zoning is not an accepted municipal "practice." The fact that it has been done elsewhere in Naperville is a problem for undeveloped properties that are already in the City. But this property is not. Again, the City cannot be forced to annex property, period. The City contemplated "forced annexation" of these parcels about five to ten years ago. Had they taken this action, then the owner can force spot zoning just like other areas in Naperville. But he does not have that RIGHT.

And I am appalled on the poor zoning decisions in Naperville. The value of the City has suffered from these poor actions. Just drive down Naper Boulevard. But unless the property is already in the City, they do not have to make the same mistake. Nobody has the RIGHT to annex to the City.

Ken, check your facts.

Opposed, where did I say that the city has to give the property owner
anything? It is my opinion that the property owner has the right to do whatever he can within the law to develop his property. While neighbors should be allowed to comment on variances, the city should make a responsible decision based on what has been allowed before, not a decision based on NIMBYs who want the lot to remain vacant, or who want to dictate their terms to the property owner or the city when they have no financial involvement.

As most cities welcome a property owner who wants to annex to their city, I would say that anybody has the right to annex as long as the city agrees.

Since I have only stated my opinion, I have no facts to check.

At this point it seems the ball is in Mr. Comforti's court. He can try to get City Council to approve his plan as submitted to the Plan Commission, or he can revise it to remove some of the variance requests, and also let's hope move the road so his neighbors to the west are not saddled with what in essence would be a "takings" in that they would have to accept a "dedicated ROW" of I think 22' on their side of the property should they decide to sell or re-develop.

Forgetting everything else, I can't see our city council allowing that, it's just not right.

By Ken on December 13, 2008 2:10 PM
Opposed, where did I say that the city has to give the property owner anything?

Later in the same post you say the following:

I would say that anybody has the right to annex as long as the city agrees.

My point, the CITY DOES NOT HAVE TO AGREE!!!!! So there is no right. Your comment is WRONG!!

I do not know if you are easily confused or try to ruin these discussions.

Opposed, when has the city refused to annex any piece of land that they can get taxes out of after the annexation? Nobody ever sues a city to be annexed, they sue not to be annexed because every city wants as much tax producing land as they can get. While your point may be right in case law, it surely does not apply to reality. Not to mention that my comment clearly stated the right to annex was at the city's discretion, so what is your point except to prove you are the one that is easily confused?

Ken,

Go do your research. There was a proposed pre annexation agreement proposed for a neighborhood of high end homes ($750,000 to $1.2 million) around 2001. The City of Naperville did not want to annex the homes because they would not use the City sewer system and were too exclusive (they had a private street system)for Naperville. The single family lots were too large (even though the neighborhood was substantially built out).

Not only correct in law, but correct in reality. And again, who is the community? Some unknown entity. No, it is the people. And if the people do not want spot zoning, the entity that is made up of the people should reflect their view.

Opposed, you are talking about a pre-existing community(do you have a name and location of this community?), not someone applying for annexation with vacant land that will follow city zoning ordinances, even if they get changes to those ordinances. Reality shows that you could only find one pre-existing community to fit your criteria, if it even exists. Reality shows that 99% of land annexation request go through.

The community should be everyone, not just the NIMBYs that live around the vacant land. For instance, I would have liked to see a gas station at the Spring Green location as there were not other gas stations close to that area. A bunch of NIMBYs took the opportunity for me to gas up my car easier away from me. In our neighboring town of Lisle, a bunch of NIMBYs and a judge up for re-election took away the opportunity for me to shop at a local Meijer's store. I imagine if there was a way to get the whole community pulse on many of these NIMBY issues, the developer would already have his approval. Instead, a spineless Plan Commission backs down to a bunch of raucous NIMBYs.

Ken,

Respectfully, I have to disagree with you. If nothing else, I think the Plan Commission realized there were significant ramifications to the property rights of the owners to the west, and voted against the proposal. A number of Commissioners mentioned the road placement and the variances requested for the road.

Put yourself in those property owners shoes. Someone wants to develop the property adjacent yours, but as it's too small, asks to put a road along your property line, forcing for you to allow something like 22' of your property to be taken in the future without any compensation. I will wager there isn't a person in Naperville that would voluntarily agree to that.

I also think there isn't a City Council member that will agree with that.

Ken,

The area that tried to annex was the gated community on the east side of Naperville. They also were looking to have Brenwood Estates ($3 to $5 million houses) also join. The highest priced real estate in Naperville area.

You are wrong about Lisle as well. Meier had no RIGHTS to annex to Lisle. In fact, the courts said their process was wrong. Why is the land vacant and Meier wants to sell for 50 cents on the dollar?

Let the guy by Seager Park develop as County estate or City R-1 following all subdivision regulations (such as appropriate setbacks like everyone else's neighborhood) and I do not think anybody would complain.

Better yet, why not tell us where you live and we can build a 30 story public housing project next door. The CHA is looking for land, sounds like next to you would be perfect.

Opposed, Meijer had the approval of Lisle's town council, and followed the same zoning procedures used across the whole state. Judge Bonnie Wheaton was up for re-election, and the NIMBYs vowed to drag her name through the mud if she ruled for Lisle and against them. She caved, and now Meijer is stuck with the property.

If you don't know the difference between a few town homes and a 30 story public housing project, you really aren't worth debating.

Nearby, everyone's yard has right of ways along them. There is the parkway, and a right of way along the back property line. That does not mean the property is going to be taken from them, just that they have to allow city and utility right of way. Without looking at the plans, I can't comment much more on it, so I supopse I will have to try to find the plans to see what is really involved.

Ken,

You keep backtracking. Was Bonnie Wheaton wrong? DUH!! The Illinois Supreme Court ratified her decision. The Lisle Village Board did not properly conduct the decision process.

Keep groping at straws Ken.

Also, some of the people have posted on this site that among the variances that this developer who you defend so recklessly is seeking exceptions of side yard setbacks. Not only that, he wants to put in streets right up to these people's yards rather than having them set back by 20 to 30 feet.

I assume the people are more right than you (you did not even see the plann!!!!!!!). And it makes sense when you try to squeeze a size 12 foot into a size 4 shoe.

Let's summarize about the recent arguments.

1. The developer is not entitled to annex to Naperville. Period.
2. Naperville does not accept all annexations.
3. Developer could develop under existing estate zoning in the County.
4. Developer could seek County rezoning.
5. Proposed site violates reasonable planning and zoning conditions that infringe on surrounding neighbors.

Ken, anything wrong with the list? From my vantage point, the project should be rejected by the City Council just like the Plan Commission.

Ken,

I respectfully point out that you continue to mistate what I said.

Let me be very clear ---- you are incorrect!

If you want to believe everything you read in the paper, fine. But if you do, don't be thin-skinned when people point out you are wrong.

I NEVER stated the lot should stay vacant at all, regardless of what it is near. I will again say that I actually encouraged development at the Plan Commission and, in fact, encouraged the development of duplexes.

My issues were based on the rules and regulations of Naperville (as some, above, are trying to edify you with), the practices in the area, and how they applied to this exact development on this exact parcel of land. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let me also add that the Meijer issue went to the Illinois Supreme Court, where it has become precedent. that has nothing to do with Judge Wheaton.

Bill S., how much clearer can this quote from you be?

However, the idea that every vacant lot should be crammed with some kind of new housing is not reflective of the Naperville I moved to 24 years ago. Development should reflect the surrounding community that already exists including park land.

All your other quotes are basically the same, i.e, you say it has been labeled park land and should stay park land. You can say I am wrong, but your quotes back me up, not you.

Opposed, I'm not back tracking at all. A bunch of NIMBYs and a judge up for re-election stole Meijer's property rights, and the Illinois Supreme court let that judgment stand, which was expected as they rarely overturn such judgments. The fact is that Lisle followed what was then standard meeting procedures for the state. Several cities filed briefs supporting Lisle, because they didn't want to change their procedures.

As for your list, Opposed, there is a lot wrong with it, most of which has been covered already. The only thing that I would add is that I looked at the plans and do not see much difference in density proposed for the development as compared to the surrounding developments. I see no infringement on the surrounding neighbors, since the "neighbors" are trees in a park.

I will stick with my original opinion that a bunch of NIMBYs want to control land they do not own.

Ken,

You are totally amazing. Bob's comment does not say park, it says do not cram a 30 story CHA building next to your house. It is ok if it is the same type of housing playing by the same rules (setbacks, street placement, etc).

No way you looked at the plat. The road that violates your rule is in the plat. If the developer had to comply with 70% of the subdivision regulations (setbacks, road widths, right of way, etc), he could not be able to build this project. These subdivision regulations PROTECT existing land owners from development that devalues their property.

As a guy who pretends to protect land owners rights, cramming a townhouse/duplex development as proposed reducces the value of the adjacent homeowners property. Such a zoning change is unauthorized taking of property, just like the you oppose. That is why these rules are written, to protect everyone. That is why the Illinois Supreme Court threw out Lisle's actions since it violate the RIGHTS of the existing land owners.

Lastly, if the list is wrong, write the correct list. You are proving the other bloggers correct, skip all the Ken posts.

Opposed, I quoted exactly what Bob said. Go up a few posts and read it where he wrote it. Since you obviously don't remember what you have written, you are the one who brought up a 30 story public housing project. I have also addressed your list, and feel no need to rehash it.

By the way, read the supreme court ruling against Lisle. According to that ruling and the plat shown, only the owners of of properties A,S, and T should really have a say in the matter, as their property is the only property that abuts the proposed development.

Ken,
Again I ask you to quote me correctly if you are going to quote me.

Again, I let you know you are wrong on the facts.

Are you attributing Bill S. quotes to me now? If so, we are not the same people.

As I wrote on December 15, 2008 10:14 AM, I NEVER asked the land to stay vacant, I NEVER talked against duplexes. I DID talk to the rules & regs of Naperville that are designed for our physical & investment protection.

[By the way, you either misread or mis-analyzed the Klaeron decision]

That's all.

My mistake, Bob. Bill S. did indeed make the remark that the property should remain vacant. You, however, did bring up the fact that maps show it as parkland, and that fact enhanced your home value. Since that property does not abut your property, it is unlikely that the development of it will affect your home value.

The Klaeron decision gave cross examining rights to people who own property that abuts the property that is to be rezoned. That is what invalidated the Lisle approval process. If the NIMBYs in that case had not gotten their slate of candidates in while the case wound its way through court, there would be a Meijer store today, as cross examination would not have changed the original decision.

That is the only reason that the NIMBY's by Seager Park have a chance as the elected officials are more worried about remaining in office than doing the right thing.

I read about your obnoxious posting in other blogs. I can see it clearly. Not only do you rewrite Illinois Supreme Court decisions, now you rewrite the history of Lisle. The newly elected Lisle board could not stop the Meier approval. Nor could they pull the plug on the plans when they were elected. They also could not fund the legal proceedings to OPPOSE Meier in court. Their only option was the courts and all of that action was done by PRIVATE individuals seeking to PRESERVE their rights. Yes, RIGHTS. The precious American value that you throw around so lightly.

And along with most other posters, I have NEVER advocated that this land owner should not be able to develop his property. INSTEAD, all along I have said he should do what he is legally allowed to do. And I am not going to repeat my or other postions.

The zoning posture that I and others are proposing are no different than what most high value communities excercise, like Hinsdale, Lake Forest, Barrington, most of the north shore. By preventing inappropriate (incompatable) land uses, these communities have preserved the real estate value at levels much greater than Naperville. One of Naperville's downfalls, in my opinion, is the spot zoning that has quietly been allowed by the munipal leaders.

Look at Bolingbrook. They had too much property zoned for multi family housing. Did they zone more? NO. Single family. They are working to catch up to Naperville, not follow policies that you seem to advocate that would destroy the community, both economically and socially.

So those of us who are trying to prevent these inappropriate plans are trying to preserve the community we have. It was not SUPPOSE to be in my back yard, so I do not want a CHANGE to allow it to be in my back yard. Build the townhouses on the MANY acres that are currently zoned for that use.

And I will not stoop to your low level at rude comments.

Opposed, as usual you miss the point. The property owner is legally allowed to request zoning changes. He should be legally allowed a fair hearing, not one with NIMBYs threatening to run the board out of office if they don't get their way. By the way, if you can't see the difference between a 30 story public housing building, the low rent town homes and apartments that Bolingbrook allowed, and the high end town homes proposed for the land next to Seagar Park, you obviously are not worth debating, as you do not live in the real world.

You show your lack of knowledge when you say that I rewrote the history of Lisle and a Supreme court ruling. Show me where I am wrong on the ruling; it specifically is brought about by property owners abutting the Meijer land and how their rights were denied.

That brings me to the Lisle board decision. The NIMBYs got their own slate elected (as the Napergatians often threaten to do, but don't) while the case wound through the court system. If the old board was still there, they could have held new hearings that followed the ruling and still approved the project. The new board was elected on the promise that they would not approve the project, and the stuck to that promise. I still don't understand why Meijer did not sue Lisle to recoup their costs when the new board did this, as they already had approval and the new board summarily took that approval away.

Those of you opposed to the plan in this case are a bunch of hypocrites. The alarmist web site posted at the beginning of this thread shows a satellite view of the area with an overlay of the proposed plans on that view. The number of units clearly match the area except for the subdivision directly across from it. That subdivision has more unit density than the proposed development. And unless your property is parcel A,S, or T, it will not be in your backyard.

As for stooping to a low level of rudeness, you have already done that when you posted your name as Opposed to Ken, which just followed your tactics of attacking me instead of my message.

To all,

I have been thinking how to respond to this very stubborn Ken. First, I do not think we need to agree. However, most people I know "agree to disagree."

But we can't do that with Ken either because he is all over the map. On one hand, he does not refute my comments or those of others. For example, I stated that the ONLY RIGHTS the owners of the proposed development have is to develop pursuant to County zoning and health regulations. Everything else is purely a request that either the County or Naperville can say no.

You will notice that Ken NEVER refutes this basic position. Instead, he feels people can ask for more. I agree.

But then Ken's arguments get very confusing. I think he feels that after a developer makes a request, that NOBODY (the NIMBYs) can stand up in any opposition. Take his position on the Supreme Court ratifing the Lisle misconduct and ruling against the Meier development. He feels the NIMBYs should have never had the chance to file their case. He also feels that a new hearing should have been held (even though Meier did not request one) and automatically approve the store. Then he says that Meijer "already had approval." (No Ken, that approval was done improperly and voided by the Illinois Supreme Court, Meier had to start the process over. That is why they have not sued.) Using this unusual thinking, every project gets approved.

And if he has some other position, it is lost on me, I do not know about the rest of you.

But Ken, since this is the Christmas season, we could give you one more chance. It would be very productive of you to list out in a clear fashion your position. I have done so, I will paste it from my previous post.

1. The developer is not entitled to annex to Naperville. Period.
2. Naperville does not accept all annexations.
3. Developer could develop under existing estate zoning in the County.
4. Developer could seek County rezoning.
5. Proposed site violates reasonable planning and zoning conditions that infringe on surrounding neighbors. Accordingly, there is NO REASON for Naperville to approve the annexation.

The only open issue should be the last one. My position is based on the plans that have been proposed. I feel that roads (public right of ways) that do not follow the proper set backs is one variance that should not be granted. I also feel that each building should be single familily because that is the character of the houses immediately adjacent to the site. I feel that all reasonable subdivision regulations for single family houses (that are very generous in Naperville by the way, 9,000 square foot lots would not be approved in Lisle or Bolingbrook any more, for example, are allowed.

And Ken if you think my perception of the proposed site is wrong, then that is where we agree to disagree. That is the judgement of the Plan Commission (they said no) and now to the City Council. The arguments should be focused on what people want this community to look like. I am personnally opposed to this spot zoning that has severely damaged the value of this community. It should be stopped.

Why should I bother to agree with someone who cannot comprehend the simple answers I have already given you? You repeatedly distort and misrepresent all my positions, either on purpose or out of sheer ignorance. I have actually agreed with you on some of your points, and you can't even see that. You are a zealot that can only see your way, and refuse to even try to understand what I have written. The fact that the planning commission gave in to you and your fellow zealots just because they are afraid of losing their positions is very frightening to anyone who values property rights.

Good summary.

First, I do not live by the project, instead am concerned about the deterioration of the community.

Second, I never asked you to agree. Instead, agree to disagree.

Third, I guess your "simple answers" are "confusing answers." That is my opinion and I will let others judge. Also, I have commented on your confused logic (the Lisle Meier case) and must still admit, I cannot see any logic in your comments.

So, I give up. You cannot summarize your comments. My summary stands. You support developers and their "rights" totally above everyone else. And from here on out, unless you make a direct, understandable arguement, there is no need to further discuss this with you any longer.

Merry Christmas to all others!!!!!

First, the community will not deteriorate from a project that has less density than the one directly across the street. The project does not infringe on anyone, except those that want free use of the land.

Second, you did ask me to agree...to disagree.

Third, you are very easily confused. What is so hard to understand about this:

That brings me to the Lisle board decision. The NIMBYs got their own slate elected (as the Napergatians often threaten to do, but don't) while the case wound through the court system. If the old board was still there, they could have held new hearings that followed the ruling and still approved the project. The new board was elected on the promise that they would not approve the project, and the stuck to that promise.

Yet you come up with this:

But then Ken's arguments get very confusing. I think he feels that after a developer makes a request, that NOBODY (the NIMBYs) can stand up in any opposition. Take his position on the Supreme Court ratifing the Lisle misconduct and ruling against the Meier development. He feels the NIMBYs should have never had the chance to file their case. He also feels that a new hearing should have been held (even though Meier did not request one) and automatically approve the store. Then he says that Meijer "already had approval." (No Ken, that approval was done improperly and voided by the Illinois Supreme Court, Meier had to start the process over. That is why they have not sued.) Using this unusual thinking, every project gets approved.

My argument is quite simple. The Lisle board approved the Meijer project using rules that had been used by the whole state, rules that Meijer also followed. Some NIMBY's sued, and the ISC added a new rule. In the meantime, the NIMBY's got their own board elected, one that would not give Meijer a fair hearing if they asked for a new hearing, as they already stated their intention to turn down the project. Without the chance of a fair hearing, Meijer did not request a new one. They should have sued Lisle for the first approval in an illegal hearing as based on that approval, they started their project. Meijer followed all the rules and had approval, until the ISC said Lisle did it wrong. Lisle's malfeasance was enough for a lawsuit for Meijer to recoup their losses as a result of an improper hearing held by Lisle.

As I have stated all this before, consider it your early Christmas present that I stated it again, typing verrry slooowwly in hopes you might comprehend it.

Merry Christmas to you, and all others here.

Ken,

On the development, I think we can focus on agreeing to disagree. You feel that a pocket of dense housing in the middle of single family (although "less dense" than accross the street--not certain about that) will not "deteriorate" the community. My opinion, housing patterns should be consistent and transitional. I oppose to spot zoning of lots and "squeezing in" the proposed townhouses.

The Plan Commission's decision is consistent with mine. Now the City Council--they can accept your point of view or mine or another. They make the decision, not you or I. And we have to live with it.

I would be curious on your "tipping point" in density in single family neighborhoods. I sense you are opposed to the 30 story apartment complex.

On the Lisle matter, two observations. First, I at least understand your point (sometimes these posting do not justice). But second, the following is a key line of yours:

"The Lisle board approved the Meijer project using rules that had been used by the whole state, rules that Meijer also followed."

Well not exactly. The Supreme Court did not create new "rules" (courts are not suppose to legislate). Instead, they ruled that Lisle DID NOT APPROPRIATELY FOLLOW THE RULES. As a result, the "approval" was voided. And if you went back to the events of that time, you will discover that people were not allowed into the Village Hall chambers to testify, they were cut off, they were not allowed to question key witnesses. I might agree that the "new" interpretation of the rules are more extreme, but that was because of the total disdain of the Lisle officials.

I heard of a neighborhood going to court to block 700 apartment units based on an illegal zoning action by DuPage County 15 years earlier. And they won. The developer put in 70 single family houses and 200 apartment units instead of appealing the court decision. And that property owner had been in court since the late 1960's relating to that property.

I would hope that you are not proposing that people lose the right to sue to address wrongful actions. That was the position of the NIMBY's in Lisle. They would not have had a case if Lisle followed reasonable actions. And it cost the people rather than the Village money. I am more impressed with their commitment to fixing the situation.

I am more upset that the Naperville Park District paid $2.5 million for the land they could have purchased for half the cost from a bank foreclosure. That is where people's tax money are to bail out a private party.