Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 151 to 163 of 163

Thread: 5 corner's gas station opposition group

  1. #151
    Forum All Star jombl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by GE Fan View Post
    Afterall, it is the Village's property, not the property of the 20 surrounding neighbor's. The Village gets to decide what gets developed there - not anybody else.
    We have a disgraceful history here of government thinking it rules without restriction, we saw that in the COD case when they chose - successfully and without significant legal opposition (and many arguments against spending on a legal fight) from the Village - to unbind themselves from our ordinances regarding health, safety and land use. We also saw the same when GE pushed through the controversial Memorial Field development.

    Of interest from that situation, and relevant here, is a quote from Ms. Ozog's public letter of resignation from a Village legislative committee:

    I am no longer willing to serve when we appear in this Village to have one standard of zoning that homeowners must follow, but a different standard when a public entity wishes to improve a property.

    Mary F. Ozog
    The neighbor's are challenging the special use permit because the Village is actually required to follow the rules. They are neither above nor beyond the rules.

    The neighbors involved have the same right as we all do to equal protection under the law. They are fighting for their homes, and in asking for fairness in process, for all us. Ms. Ozog is right, we require an even application of power.
    Last edited by jombl; 05-27-2017 at 09:59 AM.

  2. #152
    "We also saw the same when GE pushed through the controversial Memorial Field development." S


    What a joke. Still waiting for the "temporary" fence surrounding Memorial, which happens to be cemented into the ground and out of code to be replaced.

  3. #153
    Forum All Star GE Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Glen Ellyn
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by jombl View Post



    The neighbor's are challenging the special use permit because the Village is actually required to follow the rules. They are neither above nor beyond the rules.

    .
    Yep, required to follow the rules...but not restricted from granting variances. You confuse the two - most likely on purpose so as to fit your agenda.

    If all land use requirements must be followed to the letter of the local law, why even have a ZBA or a Plan Commission or a Planning Department?

  4. #154
    Forum All Star jombl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by GE Fan View Post
    Yep, required to follow the rules...but not restricted from granting variances.
    I'm not sure why you're confusing the two. The variances can only be granted by following the rules.

    And as to demanding the letter of the law? Hardly. One of the required criteria for transferring municipal real estate in Glen Ellyn is that it must be done "in accordance with an "approved development plan" pursuant to which the Village must consider whether the sale price or any other claimed economic benefits “justify the transfer of the real estate.” "

    Can you point me to the approved economic development plan? Or are you able to articulate an argument as to why the Village isn't required to follow the rules? There are many others, but that one is a clear go/nogo, black/white. They either did follow the rule, or they did not. If the economic development plan was written, it exists and you can point to it.

  5. #155
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    155
    Did Wheaton complain about the Mobil Truck stop that is being built on Roosevelt? That is just a few blocks from a school. Not starting anything, just want to know if they did or not.

  6. #156
    Forum All Star GE Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Glen Ellyn
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by jombl View Post
    I'm not sure why you're confusing the two. The variances can only be granted by following the rules.

    And as to demanding the letter of the law? Hardly. One of the required criteria for transferring municipal real estate in Glen Ellyn is that it must be done "in accordance with an "approved development plan" pursuant to which the Village must consider whether the sale price or any other claimed economic benefits “justify the transfer of the real estate.” "

    Can you point me to the approved economic development plan? Or are you able to articulate an argument as to why the Village isn't required to follow the rules? There are many others, but that one is a clear go/nogo, black/white. They either did follow the rule, or they did not. If the economic development plan was written, it exists and you can point to it.
    You write to me like I seemingly don't agree with your position. To be clear - I agree that a 12-pump station has no business on that corner. I think it was a terrible decision by the Village. And I don't care to spend time researching the economic development plan or arguing the merits of the case. I just take issue with your prior post - which is another hysterical attempt to spin something in your direction with erroneous facts and intentionally deceptive logic.

    THAT SAID

    That is a decision that the Village made and was able to make. The Village has RULES in place governing the decision making process and seems to have followed them. Alas, a court will determine if that is true or not.

    THAT SAID AGAIN

    You seem to ignore the legal reality that the Village, through their elected trustees, is able to utilize their own discretion in determining whether a transfer is justified. They are not governed by the Jombl doctrine or even the appointed boards or commissions. The Trustees (as the only elected individuals opining on the plan) are able to make up their own minds - so long as their logic is reasonably supported and buttressed by fact. They did that - and do that every single day when making a decision. I wonder if the ZBA has ever granted a variance? Those variances are, ipso facto, "against the LAW", but another LAW is in place to deal with those requests. And, if the RULES are followed when petitioning for a variance and a board agrees with the granting of a variance, then there is no encroachment on the LAW in that particular case.

    I haven't confused the LAWS and the RULES, you have.

    Carry on. Good luck with the lawsuit. I'm sure it will turn out great for all involved.

  7. #157
    Forum All Star jombl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by GE Fan View Post

    You seem to ignore the legal reality that the Village, through their elected trustees, is able to utilize their own discretion in determining whether a transfer is justified.
    The Trustees do not have absolute and unfettered discretion, they are required to follow a specific process - part of which requires that they first have an economic development plan. This is a fact.

    Why you believe otherwise and seem to think pointing to the rules is erroneous or deceptive logic beyond me. Glen Ellyn Ordinance 6302 is clear:

    1-14-2: DEVELOPMENT PLAN:

    The transfer of ownership or other interest in real estate owned by the village, pursuant to an economic development plan, shall be authorized by an ordinance. Either the ordinance or the development plan or both shall contain the compensation which the village is to receive in return for the transfer. In determining whether to make a transfer pursuant to an economic development plan, the village shall consider whether the compensation received for the real estate whether money or other compensation, along with other economic benefits which the village will receive relating to jobs, anticipated taxes, area improvements or other benefits, justify the transfer of the real estate. The ordinance or the development plan shall contain a finding or findings to support the transfer.

    (Village of Glen Ellyn Ord. 6302, 2-23-2015)
    There have been no "finding or findings to support the transfer":

    63. No prescribed “economic development plan” was ever created in connection with the sale of the Property to True North.

    64. Ordinance No. 6302 further requires that either the economic development plan or the ordinance approving the contract to sell the Property “shall contain a finding or findings to support the transfer.”

    65. No such findings were contained within any economic development plan because, as noted, there was no such plan. Nor does Ordinance No. 6386, approving the sale to True North, contain any such findings, other than referencing a desire to “place the property back on the property tax rolls” and to “generate sales and motor fuel taxes.”

    66. Upon information and belief, the Board did not conduct any research or analysis at the time of the sale to True North to determine the impact on property taxes or whether that was sufficient to “justify the transfer of the property.”

    67. Upon information and belief, the Board did not conduct any research or analysis at the time of the sale to True North to determine what the anticipated “sales and motor fuel taxes” might be (and still has not done so to this day), or whether that was sufficient to “justify the transfer of the property.”

    68. Therefore, because the sale of the Property to True North was not conducted within the scope of the Village’s home rule Ordinance No. 6302, the sale is void and null.


    Protect Glen Ellyn, Inc. vs. Village of Glen Ellyn and True North Energy LLC
    Why you fail to provide a legitimate argument supporting your contention beyond a personal attack is beyond me. There is zero "erroneous facts and intentionally deceptive logic" and your vague slander wasn't a great response.

    I've been very clear, linked and quoted GE code and in my previous post passed on and quoted a single point of many from the lawsuit filed against the project. Only one of the multiple arguments being put to the court. The economic development plan either exists or it doesn't. Simple stuff, clearly presented. Nothing in the least bit erroneous or deceptive.

    (Note that I am not and have not been a member of or involved with the opposition group Protect Glen Ellyn, their Facebook page, or the lawsuit. My opposition to the project is as an individual.)
    Last edited by jombl; 05-30-2017 at 01:27 PM.

  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Bry View Post
    Did Wheaton complain about the Mobil Truck stop that is being built on Roosevelt? That is just a few blocks from a school. Not starting anything, just want to know if they did or not.
    I think that's the largest gas station I've ever seen.

  9. #159
    Forum All Star GE Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Glen Ellyn
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Prefontaine View Post
    I think that's the largest gas station I've ever seen.
    Agree. I never started counting pumps until the Glen Ellyn debacle. Despite the size, isn't that thing only a 10-pump station?

    Also - any idea what is going in on the corner once the station transitions over?

  10. #160
    Forum Hall of Famer Cliché's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,849
    Glen Ellyn, gas station operator file motion to dismiss lawsuit (link) — Suburban Life

    "The village of Glen Ellyn and the operator of a gas station being proposed at the southeast corner of St. Charles Road and Main Street have filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by opponents of the gas station.

    In May, the nonprofit group Protect Glen Ellyn Inc. filed the suit in DuPage County Circuit Court against the village and True North Energy LLC to stop the station from being built.

    The lawsuit asks for a court to declare the group's "procedural and substantive due process rights have been violated" and the project and special-use application does not comply with..."

  11. #161
    Volvo topic moved to new thread in World at large section. Please stay on topic (I'm looking at you Clamato). Thankee!
    Last edited by RogueOne; 07-06-2017 at 09:34 AM. Reason: added link for the lazy

  12. #162
    Administrator Clamato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    3,387
    This was one hundred percent on topic. Goes to show the future of gas. How many cars will not be using it in ten years. The change to primarily electric/hybrid cars will be happening sooner than we think. PUT IT BACK!!!

  13. #163
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    310
    Developer wants to replace vacant restaurant with gas station in Lake Zurich

    An Ohio company wants to demolish the Lake Zurich building that once housed Omega Restaurant & Pancake House at routes 12 and 22 and build a gas station in its place. The developer, Truenorth Energy LLC, is proposing a Shell gas station with 12 fueling stations and a 3,500-square-foot Truenorth branded convenience store at 449 S. Rand Road, the northwest corner of the busy intersection.

    According to village documents, the developer would require a liquor license so it could sell beer and wine to compete with other nearby convenience stores. It estimated the village would eventually collect $100,000 to $125,000 in annual sales tax revenue from the business.

    If the developer is able to build the gas station and keep it open, it would succeed where others have failed. Most recently, the restaurant building has been vacant for several years.

    During Truenorth Energy's presentation to the village board Monday night, Mayor Thomas Poynton said a gas station once operated at the site but later closed. Poynton asked company representatives if they were concerned they would have problems staying open.

    "That doesn't concern us," said Ryan Howard, Truenorth Energy's chief operating officer. "We believe in our site selection and we believe we could make this very successful."

    Poynton asked if Howard thought there was enough business to go around with the other gas stations operating nearby, noting it would be the fifth gas station within a five-mile stretch of Rand Road.

    "I don't want to see you or another gas station go out of business because we added you," Poynton said.

    Howard acknowledged that putting another fuel dispenser in the network would have an impact on the other businesses.

    "I don't know all of their financial situations but we'll compete just as we do anywhere else," he said.

    The gas station and convenience store would be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, according to the proposal. The store would not have video gambling.

    The proposal was before the village board as a part of the courtesy review process, and additional hearings will be held before the board makes a final decision.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •