At the March 7th City Council meeting, Hoffman Homes suddenly dropped – at least temporarily – its plan to stuff 20 condominium units into an area on Touhy Avenue zoned for only 12.  But Hoffman’s top guy, Norm Hassinger, did not go gently into that good night. 

“This process for me has been unlike anything I have gone through in 33 years as a developer and builder,” said a clearly frustrated Hassinger.  He went on to suggest that the Council work more closely with the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Appearance Commission at the earlier stages of a project so that developers don’t get drawn into protracted zoning variance processes and commission decisions that the Council can summarily disregard.

Even though we opposed his project, Hassinger is right.

He’s right because it appears that P&Z played so irresponsibly fast and loose with the City’s Zoning Code that, as a practical matter, Hoffman Homes may well have been lulled from the very beginning of the process into a false sense that it would receive its 66% density increase and the other variances P&Z approved.  Worse yet, P&Z approved those controversial variances following a public hearing held two days before Thanksgiving 2010, with 3 of its 9 members absent.

That fact alone creates a sense of a “kangaroo” proceeding – a sense that only increases once one considers that 6 of the 7 citizens who spoke at that hearing voiced concerns about the project’s density, and that two commissioners who provided the 4-2 majority for recommending that 66% density increase (and other Zoning Code exceptions) expressed more concern for the developer than for either the Zoning Code requirements or the views of our citizens.

According to Page 5 of the official minutes of that P&Z meeting, Commissioner Mary Catherine Wells “declared that…the City should support developers,” while Commissioner Anita Rifkind expressed concern that the developer would not be able to get financing if it was held to the Code requirements. 

Unless we missed something in the Zoning Code or the Municipal Code, supporting developers and facilitating developer financing is not part of P&Z’s job description.  As best as we can tell, P&Z is supposed to enforce the Zoning Code and look out for the interests of the community.  How a 66% increase in residential density can be in the best interests of the community, frankly, boggles our mind.

That’s why, in what may be a first for this blog, we wholeheartedly agree with Ald. Robert Ryan when he said (at the March 7th Council meeting) that he was “shocked this even got through” P&Z.  Taking that one step farther, we think “the P&Z 6” owe this community an explanation of why they went ahead with the hearing and vote rather than defer it to when it would have closer to a full complement of commissioners; and that Ms. Wells and Ms. Rifkind owe this community an explanation of their comments.          

Hassinger indicated that he might redo his plans and bring the project back to P&Z at some future date.  If so, we hope that by then P&Z will have stopped considering itself the developers’ BFF, willing to roll over for the “right” developer or development irrespective of the Zoning Code requirements.

Either that, or those P&Z members should be honest enough to formally initiate a change of the Code requirements that it prefers not to enforce.

To read or post comments, click on title.