Latest news with #BZA
Chicago Tribune
4 days ago
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
Federal appeals court affirms Highland's refusal to OK drug treatment center
The Town of Highland won't be getting a drug treatment center after the company that wanted to establish it lost its final appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District in a decision filed August 1 ruled in favor of the town after Fishers-based Chosen Consulting LLC alleged Highland 'discriminated against patients with addiction-related ailments by refusing to provide a letter stating that Chosen's proposed use of its property complies with local zoning requirements.' The group claimed the action violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and sought $9 million in damages, Town Attorney John Reed said. Chosen bought the former Highland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, 9630 5th Ave., in April 2019 and met with Building Commissioner Ken Mika that July to present plans for an in-patient drug rehabilitation facility, the Post-Tribune previously reported. The property on which the building resides is currently zoned R-1 residential, Mika said at the time, but the nursing home had been grandfathered in. To run a drug rehab, Chosen needed a letter from the Town stating that Chosen's proposed use of the property satisfies local zoning requirements to present to the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration to get a new license, according to court documents. Mika and then Councilman Mark Herak, D-2, told the representative it would have to first get a use variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, which had the authority to grant a 'favorable' or 'unfavorable' recommendation; the town would then have to approve the BZA's recommendation. Chosen, according to the decision, never went before the BZA to get the variance, but in the fall of 2019 requested the Town send the letter 'affirming that its proposed use conformed with the property's alleged 'existing legal nonconforming use' under Ordinance No. 645.' The Town didn't issue the requested letter, and in March 2020, Mika and Herak met with Chosen representative Melissa Durkin and reiterated that Chosen would have to seek a use variance. Chosen still didn't, according to the decision, so in May of 2020, Reed emailed a draft letter to Chosen explaining that it shouldn't count on ever receiving the FSSA letter because the council didn't give him approval to send it, the decision said. Reed's draft also said that 'in the Town's opinion, 'the proposed use as a residential addiction treatment facility is permitted as a legal non-conforming use,' but no formal letter was ever issued.' The following month, Durkin emailed Herak to have all call to talk about 'where they were in the process,' to which Herak said 'there was nothing on the BZA's docket, and that '[t]he town attorney did say he didn't think it was a protected class and a drug rehab doesn't fall under nursing care,' nor was he aware 'of any letter, either … being drafted or agreed to,'' the decision reads. Additionally, then-Town Council President Mark Schocke, R-3 — whose wife taught at a school near the property, was 'opposed to the idea' and 'had 'brow beate[n] the town attorney and he's changed his opinion.'' Chosen in June 2020 filed action requesting a declaratory judgment regarding proper zoning, including declarations that '[t]he Property is properly zoned and may continue to operate as a legal nonconforming use' and that Chosen is 'entitled to obtain the requested documentation of its legal nonconforming use,' the decision reads. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings on this count, reasoning that it did not have jurisdiction because Chosen had not obtained a final decision from the local zoning authorities. The complaint also alleged that 'the Town has discriminated against disabled individuals by failing to provide the requested letter in violation of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act' and requested compensatory and equitable relief, including the entry of a permanent injunction ordering the Town 'to stop obstructing [Chosen's] access to the Property for purposes of serving patients as a certified sub-acute facility and compelling issuance of the requested letter and [a] declaration that the proposed use of the Property as a sub-acute facility meets all zoning requirements,' the decision said. The Town later filed a motion for summary judgment on this count, which the district court granted because 'Chosen was required to exhaust its available remedies under local and state law before pursuing injunctive relief related to a local zoning process.' 'Until Chosen has properly pursued the Town's approval and the Town has decided whether it will permit Chosen's proposed use, this dispute is not ripe (for adjudication),' the decision said. Reed said that the suit was a 'very long and expensive road of litigation' and was glad to see Highland prevail, though he disagrees with Chosen's version of the situation. 'While the Town is thrilled by the decision and grateful to the District and 7th Circuit Courts to be vindicated, we are equally disappointed at being accused of discriminatory behavior when nothing could've been further from the truth,' Reed said.
Yahoo
23-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Controversial Boston-Edison apartments plan gets Detroit appeals board support
A resident of Detroit's Boston-Edison neighborhood fell short on July 21 in his effort to halt a developer's controversial plan to transform a vacant building into 49 income-restricted apartments, despite support from other nearby residents also in opposition. Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals voted 7 to 2 to reject the resident's request to overturn an April decision by the city's Buildings, Safety Engineering, and Environmental Department, or BSEED, which gave a green light to the redevelopment project at 9851 Hamilton. The vote capped a marathon July 21 hearing on the redevelopment proposal that ran for nearly five hours. Although the empty three-story building is not within the Boston-Edison Historic District, it is directly adjacent to it. More: Controversy erupts over apartments plan near Detroit's Boston-Edison neighborhood Many who spoke against the project at the hearing were Boston-Edison homeowners, including the resident behind the formal appeal, Kegan Scannell, who lives in a house next door to the Hamilton property. It was not immediately clear whether Scannell intends to appeal the BZA's decision by taking it to the Wayne County Circuit Court. His successful 2023 appeal of the project's earlier city approvals forced the developer to restart the process from the beginning this year. The developer, Timeless Properties, seeks to convert the 1920 building that was once a church's community center into apartments and ground-floor retail space, including a possible cafe. This spring's BSEED approval would allow for housing and retail at the site, where the current permitted uses are office and parking. Timeless Properties says it is looking to enroll the development in a new city PILOT program, or Payment In Lieu of Taxes, aimed at creating "workforce housing" and in which rents would be capped, with residents allowed to earn no more than 120% of the area median income, currently $84,840 for an individual or $96,960 for two people. Numerous Boston-Edison residents have spoken out against the project at hearings, voicing general concerns that the new apartments and retail would introduce too much density to the neighborhood, generate too much traffic and hog street parking. While BZA members heard a mix of comments during the hearing from the project's supporters and opponents, most of the comments and written letter submissions were in opposition. Scannell stood before the appeals board with his attorney, Charlotte McCray, who also is a Boston-Edison resident. McCray offered a list of the project's potential negative impacts to Scannell: Diminishment of his property values. Having his property mere feet away from the apartment building's dumpster. The possibility of the dumpster attracting rats. A reduction in privacy, with some of the building's windows directly facing his house's windows. The current lack of screening, such as a wall, between the building and his property. His expected loss of enjoyment from his property if the development proceeds. Scannell told the BZA members that he definitely believes the development will negatively affect the value of his property. 'I wouldn't have bought the house if I knew there was going to be 49 apartments behind it," he said. Scannell also said that his dogs as well as one of his neighbors suffered respiratory problems after one of the project's contractors — who was later fired — was caught dumping debris out of the building's windows. Later in the hearing, Scannell accused the city of having "developer favoritism" when granting approvals for this project and others throughout Detroit, and of minimizing concerns from neighboring residents like himself. 'This process has been immensely difficult for me personally," he said, "but I love my neighborhood and want to protect it. 'Rather than holding the applicant to the standards of the zoning ordinance, the city has bent over backwards to justify a noncompliant project while disregarding the lived experiences of the residents most directly affected.' Among the Boston-Edison residents who spoke against the project July 21 was Alan Brown, who owns the Motown Mansion once belonging to Berry Gordy and which is located on the opposite side of Hamilton from the proposed apartments. Brown said he disputes BSEED's contention that the development wouldn't change the character of the immediate neighborhood. "What I am witnessing today is the systematic bias of the city of Detroit in favor of this developer," Brown said, "and frankly, I think it's shocking.' Timeless Properties' co-owner Adam Noel defended the redevelopment during the hearing and questioned whether Scannell truly fits the legal definition of having been "aggrieved" by the BSEED decision. He noted how much of the debate during the hearing centered on parking, even though Scannell's house has a garage and a sizable driveway that could accommodate many vehicles. "This building existed 100 years before the applicant (Scannell) bought his home," Noel said. He also emphasized that Timeless Properties' aim is to restore and bring an empty building back to life. 'This is not a new development taking away a field next to a community, or tearing down existing structures that (don't) fit the neighborhood or its surroundings," Noel said. 'Rather, this building is a time capsule to what Detroit used to be 100 years ago and a testament to the architecture of the early 20th century," he said. "By renovating this building, we are removing blight from the neighborhood, eliminating a potential fire hazard and enhancing the livability of the community.' Contact JC Reindl: 313-378-5460 or jcreindl@ Follow him on X @jcreindl This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Controversial Boston-Edison apartments plan gets appeals board support
