The danger zone.

DuPage County has been seeking the ability to do whatever it wants to when it comes to developing real estate, under the cover of “affordable workforce housing” and “by right” use.

Despite opposition from every community that is aware of it, the county continues to push this potential program towards their goal. On April 21st and 27th, the village council met and wrote up a resolution declaring it’s opposition to the county attempt to create “Affordable Workforce Housing” in unincorporated DuPage County.

There are three components to this attempt to circumvent rational zoning laws:

• Senate Bill 1451, sponsored by State Senator Randy Hultgren (Wheaton) and Senator John J. Millner (Bloomingdale), would permit the county board in counties over 500,000 (excluding Cook) to use county funds to sell, lease, or exchange county property, including but not limited to a partial interest in property and to sell, lease or exchange property at less than fair market value, to achieve any housing need of the county and to benefit the residents of the county.  There are four counties that fit that requirement: DuPage (929,192), Kane (501,021), Lake (710,241), and Will (673,586).  Coincidence that bill sponsors are from DuPage?
• DuPage County’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) pumps a one time federal payment of $5,176,438 into a program designed to “provide funding for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and resale of the many foreclosed homes peppering the neighborhoods of DuPage County.  The county, at it’s discretion, can continue the program past the first year, and put additional funds into the program if it decides to.
• T-01-09-Proposed Amendments to the DuPage County Zoning Ordinance relative to Workforce Development Housing (AWFH) Regulations (Request to Send to ZBA for Public Hearing) covers that zoning changes that council and staff fired off the resolution against.

DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference has also weighed in against some aspects of  this.  T-01-09 itself essentially eliminates one of the fundamental tenets of comprehensive county planning, that being deferring development approval to municipalities for areas that are within 1 mile (some counties 1.5 miles) of the municipal border.  This zoning amendment would eliminate the applications process planners use to look at building projects individually.

How it is now: “We want to do this; take a look, is this okay?  Will you let us?”

How it would be: (silence until bulldozers show up).

That could be an explosive problem in Downers Grove, where we have an unincorporated area on the southwest side that has, like everywhere else, many foreclosures going on that could be future high density developments.  Last year DG successfully used that deferred jurisdictional authority to stop a development project proposed by Pat Trowbridge which consisted of 24 townhouses on 2.75 acres of land.

This is what was called for in the original development the village opposed and prevented.  24 townhouses on 2.75 acres of land.

This is what could be built “by right” on the same property, with no say by the village.  38 townhouses on the same 2.75 acres of land.

Why do that?  Why change the zoning requirements and regulations, in many cases loosening the county’s own rules for things like density, setbacks, stormwater compensation, and required utility hookups?  Why open the door for severely overcrowded development projects being crow-barred into low density residential areas?

Higher density means more units equals more profit potential along with the lower prices.

24 units was too high a density for the village.  Add in an additional 14 units, mix in  T-01-09, and the village has no say.  That would create affordable workforce housing, but it’s also a development that throws the entire area out of kilter, out of density guidelines, and into potential flooding, something we don’t need more of here in DG.  On the plus side, it does allow for cheaper units to be built.  By building so many more of them, the developer can still make a handsome profit.

Naperville is the latest community to wake up to the potential nightmare this county undertaking represents, and they have also responded overwhelmingly in the negative.  In response to all the negative feedback, County Board member Kyle Gilgis (District 3 Downers grove), who has headed up the county effort, said the county will hold weekend informational meetings on the matter.  I could not find any information on the meetings on the County website.

Downers Grove straddles two districts, 2 and 3.  Should you wish to weigh in for or against workforce development housing as currently proposed by DuPage County you can get emails, addresses and phone numbers for all board members here.

Any white areas, even seemingly inside municipalities, are fodder for Affordable Workforce Housing development under proposed county rule changes.

A respected corporate neighbor, Fairview Village proposes building four eight-unit senior citizen residences on the site of the failed Green Acres subdivision. The buildings will conform to current setback requirements, but will be lower and have smaller footprints than the million-dollar homes that had been planned for Lynn Gremer Court. One of the two new homes that were built at the location — but which never sold — will be maintained as a club house for residents.

While there were impassioned statements on both sides of the issue, perhaps local attorney Bill White offered the most persuasive argument for separating what is generally viewed as a model project brought forth by an irreproachable petitioner from the zoning challenges it presents.

White, who serves as chairman of the zoning board of appeals and previously represented a group of neighbors who oppose Fairview’s request, submitted a written objection to the propose rezoning in advance of the council workshop meeting. I spoke to him about the hot-button issue yesterday.

With the village on the brink of updating its future land use map and comprehensive plan in conjunction with the Total Community Development 3 process, White argued that it is premature to entertain a re-zoning request that could have a potentially far-reaching impact on the west side of Fairview.

Should that zoning change become effective, the council will have a much more difficult time holding off other requests that may be more intrusive than the Fairview Village proposal, White said. Particularly when a report on the impact of similar projects on nearby housing values seemed to indicate there is no bad news for homeowners.

White is concerned the measure used by consultant Tracy Cross & Associates “isn’t fine enough to limit their conclusion to Lynn Gremer Court.” If he’s right, the report also could be used to justify the encroachment of multi-family housing in other single-family neighborhoods.

If the Cross report, and a second report by the MIT Center for Real Estate are objectively true, “it will make scrupulous following of the future land use map more important,” White said. “If we get challenged on it, if we’ve disregarded it here and there, why should a judge uphold it now?”

“The more scrupulously we follow the future land use map, the easier it is the defend it,” he said.

Rather than addressing the Fairview Village proposal now — and perhaps leaving itself open to a legal challenge on the basis of spot-zoning — the council should consider and update the future land use map first, then consider the Fairview Village proposal in light of whatever changes may be enacted, White says.

For example, the village might chose to create a special R-5 zoning category for less-dense senior housing — a move that would protect the neighborhood from other multi-family developments while allowing for expansion of Fairveiw Village, he said.

“None of the arguments preclude Fairview Village from getting what they want after an open and transparent process,” White said.

“If we do a comprehensive review of the land use map and if the future land use map says, yes, we will create a stretch of R-5 s(enior), it would be very hard to break it because the community, as a whole, would have gone through the process.”

Based on their comments at Tuesday’s meeting, several council members seem to agree that the issue comes down to zoning, not to the merits of Fairview Village or its plan.

“From my perspective, it is not whether or not senior citizen housing is valuable but whether or not its is appropriate at this location and time,” said Commissioner Marilyn Schnell. “To my mind it is truly and only a zoning issue and that is the only decision the council has to make.”

Schnell and Commissioner Martin Tully seemed concerned that a council decision more than five years ago to allow a townhouse development as a transition between a commercial development at 63th Street and Fairview and the single-family neighborhood to the south was intended to be a sole exception to single-family zoning along that stretch of Fairview Avenue.

“From what I remember intending and expecting in 2002 and 2003, I have a real problem with this,” Tully said.

Noting that “process matters to me a great deal,” Mayor Ron Sandack agreed that the petition is a zoning issue and the council’s role is to determine whether the project belongs in the location in question under the terms of the current future land use map.

“I have no doubt, to be blunt, that Fairview Avenue is likely to change in the future,” he said. “But we haven’t had that discussion yet.” Such a discussion would involve neighbors and stakeholders, he said.

“We have a tough decision to make, but we signed on as leaders and that means telling someone no.”

Stewart’s demeanor was professional and thoughtful, but it was also clear he is frustrated by the controversy surrounding plans to build four eight-family units in the residential neighborhood on the west side of Fairview Avenue. Citing the need to consider additional information, the village council in June remanded the proposal to the plan commission, which had earlier recommended in favor of it.

Fairview Village bought the failed Green Acres subdivision on Lynn Gremer Court with the goal of building four two-story buildings on the seven lots facing the cul-de-sac. The senior community also bought an additional five lots on Davane Lane, which it has since put up for sale.

“The only way the mortgage company would sell us the (seven) lots would be if we also bought the additional five,” Stewart explained.

While some neighbors are convinced the senior community has designs to expand further into the neighborhood, “we won’t build a project that doesn’t front on Fairview,” Stewart said. “We own a couple of more houses on Fairview, but the fact is, Fairview Avenue is not Davane Lane.”

The plans call for 32 senior adult apartments with entry fees in the $600,000 range. The buildings will conform to current setback requirements, but will be lower and have smaller footprints than the million-dollar homes that had been planned for Lynn Gremer Court. One of the two new homes that were built at the location — but which never sold — will be maintained as a club house for residents.

The only change Fairview Village is asking for involves density — zoning would be changed to R-5a townhouse residential from the current R-3 single family — but it’s a whopper for the folks who live nearby.

Neighbors have expressed concerns about the development’s impact on late-night noise and disruption (assuming more ambulance calls to the senior residences), stormwater, traffic and home values.

Fairview Village has successfully allayed the first three issues, Stewart said, but the matter of home values continues to be a sticking point.

Stewart said the senior community engaged Tracy Cross and Associates Inc., which provides regional housing data to the Chicago Tribune, to analyse the potential impact of the project. “Their conclusion was that there would be no detrimental impact on local home values.”

Nevertheless, village staff has recommended the plan commission deny the development because Fairview Village “has not demonstrated the impact of the proposal on adjacent property values.”

The senior community intends to gather additional data and meet with planning staff before the matter comes before the plan commission yet again on September 8.

“I’m not saying it will increase values, but I’m saying it won’t negatively impact them,” Stewart says of the project. “We’re not trying to hide anything.”

Fairview Village has been in existence for more than 100 years, although it moved to Downers Grove in 1973. It has expanded multiple times, including adding 56 cottages in 1992 and 218 apartments in 1995. Another 197 appartments, a new nursing home and fitness center are planned for 2010. To date all the construction has been on the east side of Fairview Avenue.

Clearly, the demand for the services Fairview Village provides is growing, with waiting lists for some of its facilities of up to two years.

“There are for-profit competitors where seniors can move in tomorrow,” Stewart says. “People want to be at a non-profit, religiously sponsored campus like Fairview Village. ”

The senior community wants to continue to be a good neighbor and has invited local residents and their attorney, Bill White, to attend the Sept. 8 meeting.

“We’re trying to take the high road,” Stewart said. “A single-family development was tried there and failed. We believe our plan would be great for Downers Grove.”