By LORRAINE SWANSON
Editor
The Chicago City Council approved a zoning change for a property at 4627 N. Beacon St. on Wednesday, paving the way for a controversial condominium development to be built on what was once the site of the oldest home in Sheridan Park.
The zoning change was granted with a restrictive covenant locking Uptown developer Chris Byrne into his plans for an eight-unit condominium building. According to a copy of the legal document provided by 46th Ward Alderman Helen Shiller’s office, Byrne may not stray from his original design in any form or manner.
The covenant carries restrictions prohibiting front balconies, patios and patio pits. Bricks used in the façade must be similar in size and color of other historic buildings in the neighborhood. The building must also be set back in the front yard even with existing buildings to the immediate south, and in no way encroach the required 40-foot setback. The restrictive covenant is dated June 29, 2009, and signed by Byrne.
Sheridan Park was declared a National Landmark District in 1985. Residents protested the development when it was first proposed to the community in September 2005. At that time, residents and Shiller agreed to preserve the existing zoning that allowed for single-family and smaller apartment buildings, protecting the neighborhood’s historic architecture and character. On Christmas Eve that same year, Byrne demolished the 1892 Victorian home allegedly without a demolition permit, according to neighbors.
Residents took their fight to the Committee on Zoning last month, contending that when Byrne purchased the property, he did so with the knowledge that it was located in a historic landmark district.
The city backed up Byrne’s account that there was an error on the city’s zoning map. He says he bought the property in 2005 with the full knowledge that it was zoned at higher zoning designation, allowing for an eight-unit building.
Shiller reversed her position and sided with the developer, acknowledging that errors had been made on her part, as well as the city’s and developer’s.
Despite petitions signed by over 200 residents, and letters from the Uptown Chicago Commission, Landmark Illinois and Uptown block clubs opposing the zoning change, the Committee on Zoning approved the developer’s request.
After the meeting, Shiller stated that she returned Byrne’s campaign contributions totaling $1,500.
The restrictive covenant is binding and is enforceable to all subsequent owners of the property or of the condominium units. After the development is completed, Byrne must go before the Committee on Zoning and have the zoning restored back to that of single-family homes and smaller apartment buildings.
Print this article
I don’t think that “legal document” is worth the paper it is written upon. It is just smoke and mirrors to shut up the community until the project is a done deal. Look how many similar similar contracts exist in this community that have never been enforced by the City or the alderman. Under the Park District/CTA/CUBS contract Challenger Park is supposed to have an ice skating rink, El track shields to protect cars under the El tracks, maintenance performed by the CUBS organization and a limit of parkiing lot use for night games. We know those provisions have never been enforced despite community demands that the legal document be followed. S
Similarly, the Wilson El rental agreement required that the tenants in the building under the El platform improve the properties with paint jobs, window improvements, and other upgrades years ago. We know that CTA refused and the alderman refused to see that that city legal document get enforced also.
Also, look at the City’s street furniture contract. We are supposed to have wrought iron information kiosks for the parks. I have pictures of those babies from the original presentation and been pointing to the lines in city contract that say they were supposed to be delivered years ago but there is not one yet to be found in the city. Why doesn’t the City enforce that contract?
The bottom line is that these contracts are written so that the citizens have no power to enforce these contracts and thus they are worthless to the community. Contracts like these allow the city and alderman to chose whether or not to enforce the provisions, usually some day down the road when the community is less stirred up about the issue. Thus, the legal document only serves as a distraction to let the community think that they have won an issue when, in fact, the party in the contract is only bound to city and aldermanic politics.