Rezoning Bill Passed By House

UPDATED: April 4, 11:27 a.m.

Members of the Illinois House of Representatives passed HB 1056 last week with some significant changes to its original text. The amendment, which passed with a 107-3 vote, gives Illinois municipalities with a population under 500,000 the power to adopt specific rules of procedure for their planning commission or appointed board.

While the bill allows municipalities to set rules regarding who can participate in public hearings (including cross-examination and testimony), it does not set any state-wide terms for what is considered an 'interested party.'

Click on 'view gallery' to see how house members voted.

Original story:

Proposed state legislation to change the hearing process for rezoning and variance requests is drawing fire from two community groups. Critics maintain the Village of Lisle requested the legislation in the wake of the contentious rezoning for the Navistar site.

House Bill 1055 (HB 1055) and House Bill 1056 (HB 1056) would amend Illinois' current county and municipal codes, respectively, by defining which ‘interested parties’ can take action during the hearing process—including issuance of subpoenas and presentation of evidence. Those parties would be limited to the petitioner, county, the local government in jurisdiction, and those legally required to receive notice of the public hearing by mail.

Rep. Darlene Senger (R-Naperville) serves as the bills' chief sponsor. The Illinois General Assembly website lists Rep. Michael Connelly (R-Lisle) as the original filer, but Connelly said that a filing error was made that put his name on the bills.

The bills are drawing opposition from two groups who say the changes limit citizen engagement in the hearing process, and Richard Wilkie, a candidate for village trustee in the April 5 election, is asking, “Why would one small town want to change a whole law within the state?”

Citizen opposition

Citizens for Healthy Development, the DuPage community group that opposed the Navistar rezoning, has monitored the progress of the bill from its early days, posting a bulletin on their website the same day the bill's sponsorship switched to Rep. Senger, detailing the changes. They believe the bill violates the 14th Amendment right to due process—particularly for those who live more than 250 feet from a site under considerations for rezoning or a variance.

When the bills came up for hearing this week, the CHD posted a second bulletin detailing time complications that could arise for residents requesting information or participating in the cross-examination of petitioners. Resident MaryLynn Zajdel, representing the CHD, sent an e-mail to local legislators that emphasized the impact of resident participation in the Navistar hearings.

“In light of meetings held last summer with the governor’s staff and the attorney general’s staff that led to settling the matter with all of the previously proposed industrial uses removed from the final project in Lisle, CHD thought that the message about why we fought the proposal was heard by our elected officials,” her statement read.

The Citizen Advocacy Center, based in Elmhurst, also issued a statement opposing the bills this week (attached to the right).

The CAC’s executive directory, Terry Pastika, said HB 1056 “adversely affects the capacity of concerned citizens, who have legitimate questions regarding petitions, to participate in a formal manner.”

They believe the changes will create a natural advantage to the petitioner and bestows too much power on the hearing committee chairman.

Will the Bills be Changed?

Both bills were pulled from their scheduled hearings this week.

“There is no hold-up,” Senger said Thursday. “We still have four weeks to get our bills heard through committee and on the floor, and basically today was the last day for filing bills, so I’ve been working on filing bills.”

HB 1056 is re-scheduled to appear before the cities and villages committee on March 1. Both bills could be presented with a few changes, though nothing specific has been cited yet.

According to Senger, she received “several suggestions for amendments,” and is working with legal counsel and other groups to explore possible revisions to the bill. Any changes made to the original text will be noted on the ILGA website for public viewing.

Lisle Connection?

Wilkie believes the Navistar proceedings in Lisle are responsible for the proposed changes.

“This is based on their experience with Navistar. The stuff that is being done now is a knee-jerk reaction to the way the village handled poorly in the first place. They are trying to prevent citizens from making comments in the future,” he said.

Mayor Joe Broda has declined official comment on whether the village was involved in introducing the proposed legislation, though village attorney Robert Bush said he did not participate in the process.

Recently the village’s planning and zoning committee to the local hearing process—a move the CHD spoke against at public meetings.  Both Wilkie and CHD said they believe the village was involved in the drafting of the two bills.

“The Village of Lisle, DuPage County Board and a DuPage economic development group [Choose DuPage] all worked on this…I find it highly questionable that a municipality the size of Lisle would be spending tens of thousands of dollars on attorney fees. The attorney's draft legislation on the state level isn’t an appropriate use of taxpayer money,” Wilkie said.

Senger confirmed she has been keeping track of the recent zoning hearing changes in Lisle “to see if it makes sense to for [her] to do” with HB 1056. She noted that Mike Skarr, CEO of Choose DuPage, “was at the [initial] meetings, but was not an officially a Choose DuPage initiative.”

Skarr was not available for comment.

The CHD links to a copy of the Illinois State Boad of Elections’ records of Navistar’s campaign contributions in October 2010, which included $1,000 contributions to Connelly and Senger.  It does not allude to a direct connection between the contributions and the bills. The document includes the company’s contributions to two other legislators, as well as the Naperville and Illinois chambers of commerce. No contributions were made to Gov. Pat Quinn or Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who were both considered instrumental in wooing Navistar to reconsider Lisle.

Hope for progress

This isn't the first time Lisle residents rallied against a large development project. Connelly, who lives in Lisle, commented on his experience when Meijer petitioned to develop property near Benedictine University a decade ago. Connelly said it was the lack of resident power that ultimately got the hearing overturned by the Supreme Court, and allowed residents to participate during Navistar's petition period.

"There was no cross-examination, no subpoena, no questions. We were given two minutes to make a statement or ask a question and told literally to sit down," he recalled.

Connelly doesn't think the state can develop a "one size fits all" procedure.

"In Southern Illinois, let's say a major manufacturing plant comes in. Will 250 feet cut it? Probably not.... Each city should have autonomy to develop own rules and procedures," he said. "The Klaeren Opinion gives us guidance."

Lisle Trustee Mark Boyle said he feels it is healthy that both sides are having a discussion.

Trustee Cathy Cawiezel thinks there is room for adjustment.

“If you think of it in terms of a pendulum swung to a certain degree because of the Meijer development and where mistakes were made in allowing interested parties to speak, I think the impetus of this bill came from outside of the village,” Cawiezel said. “It came from a DuPage County source. Everyone understands that it is in response to the frustrations on all sides during the Navistar hearings. There is going to be some back-and-forth until this pendulum adjusts to the place it should be.”

Bob Bajek contributed to this story.