Story posted Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Billboard Request Dead
Council Vote Nixes Plan For Signs Along 294
By CRAIG ADAMS Journal & Topics Reporter
By a vote of 4–3, the Park Ridge City Council on Monday, Jan. 18, withdrew its billboard request, rather than voting on the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation on that request.
"They saw the writing on the wall and decided to drop it," said Mayor Dave Schmidt the next morning. "There was really no way out so long as Aldermen Sweeney and DiPietro stuck to their guns."
Joseph Loss, representing Generation Group Inc., came before the council with a request for a text amendment to erect four billboards along the Tri-State Tollway (I-294). On Aug. 18, the Park Ridge City Council voted 5–2 to ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider a text amendment allowing billboards larger and closer together than currently permitted. Ald. Joe Sweeney (1st) and Rich DiPietro (2nd) voted against the proposal.
The Planning and Zoning Commission rejected the proposal on Nov. 10, but, because the city council presented it, it returned to the council for a possible reversal of that decision.
However, on Monday, Nov. 16, the council changed the zoning ordinance regarding reviews of commission decisions. Where a request to the commission from the city council previously required a simple majority to overturn a denial, the council changed that to a supermajority: six of eight including the mayor. City Attorney Everette Hill later ruled the city must use the new rule in consideration of the billboard issue. Usually, issues continue under rules in effect at the time of the request to protect to petitioners from the city changing ordinances during a process. However, since the city was the petitioner, it cannot put itself at a disadvantage by changing its own rules.
The matter was to come to a vote on Jan. 18; however, Ald. James Allegretti (4th), who made the original request for the text amendment, substituted a withdrawal of the request instead of a call to vote on the commission's denial of the request.
DiPietro argued the council should vote on the original motion. "The motion is properly before the body," he said. He felt the council should vote on its own request, finalizing the action, and allowing Generation Group to move forward with its own request to the Planning and Zoning Commission if it chose to do so.
Mayor Dave Schmidt also urged a vote. "The Planning and Zoning Commission has made a recommendation to us and the city council has to vote on that recommendation. I don't think we can withdraw it because we have to act on the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation."
Hill, however, pointed out, "The city is the petitioner." Hill explained, "My opinion is that a petition for a zoning change can be withdrawn at any time prior to final action being taken on it."
Schmidt outlined the council's options, to withdraw the motion, to table it, to continue it, or to vote on it. "Ald. Allegretti's motion seeks to wipe the slate clean," he said.
Two residents urged the council to vote on the matter. "You need to vote on this and be done with it on the denial of P&Z and not pass the buck again," said Pat Livensparger. She also expressed concern that, under city rules, the city could again request a similar text amendment. If the council agreed with the denial, the city could not make another such request for at least one year.
Dan Knight agreed, "I think you should act now," he said. "I can't imagine you'd wipe the slate clean as you say on something that's been this contentious."
Loss also addressed the council. He thanked aldermen for treating him fairly and acknowledged the angry residents. "I know this was a contentious issue and sometimes emotions run high," he said. "We're going to take your comments under advisement and rethink our position."
"Since Generation Group is no longer interested, it seems to me the city should be no longer interested," Allegretti said.
A vote on his substitute motion passed with DiPietro, Sweeney, and Ald. Frank Wsol (7th) in opposition.
Schmidt did not see the point to the withdrawal as opposed to the council affirming the commission's decision. "Maybe they thought it was better than an outright defeat although the net effect is the same," he said.
Schmidt also addressed Livensparger's concern. "I can't foresee the city petitioning again," he said. "Not this council." Unless the council had a turnover of aldermen who wanted billboards, which would postdate the one-year restriction, "I don't see the outcome to be any different in the future."
Speak Out!
Comments are edited first by Journal staff before running in print and appearing online.