Elmhurst Mayor Defends Action On Roberto's

ELMHURST, IL – With property values declining near Roberto's Pizzeria, Elmhurst's mayor this week defended the city's 2021 decision to approve parking lots for the restaurant.

In response, a lawyer for the eatery's neighbors, said the mayor was "dead wrong."

Roberto's tore down houses behind its building to make way for parking lots. This spring, the York Township assessor substantially reduced the values of two houses next door, citing the coming parking lots.

In a speech at Monday's City Council meeting, Mayor Scott Levin appeared to contradict the view of an alderwoman who made the case against the parking lots two years ago.

He said the assessor's office has a policy of reducing by 20 percent any home that is next to a parking lot.

But he said such a policy cannot be used as the basis for the city's decisions on conditional use permits for parking lots.

Levin also said it was improper for aldermen to substitute their common sense in place of the evidence introduced and the decision of the Zoning and Planning Commission.

The council can only consider evidence on property values from licensed appraisers or other real estate experts, Levin said.

"The only evidence introduced to the commission with respect to the parking lots' effect on property values was Roberto's expert, who testified that there would be no significant impact on property values," the mayor said. "(N)either the number of residents protesting nor laymen opinion about value is considered evidence."

He added, "Roberto's neighbors did not introduce any legal evidence before the commission that there would be a significant impact on property values."

In an interview Wednesday, Mark Daniel, who represented neighbors, said Levin had the process "upside down."

"The burden is on the developer," said Daniel, an Elmhurst resident. "He has to show no adverse impact on property values. We argued that they did not meet their burden by bringing tax records. They are not reliable evidence on impact. No court would ever accept that evidence."

And Daniel disagreed that homeowners' testimony about values is not considered evidence.

"Any homeowner is qualified to testify about those impacts and any homeowner can testify about their perception of impact on value," the lawyer said. "It's not the neighbors' burden to bring in evidence."

Levin's view on the council's role is quite different from that of Alderwoman Emily Bastedo, who argued against the parking lots in fall 2021.

At the time, she said aldermen, as elected officials, could bring their life experiences in making judgments about requests for things such as parking lots.

"We all know that a house on the ocean is worth much more than one three blocks from the ocean," Bastedo said.

By the same token, she said, a house with a parking lot on two sides is going to be worth less than one surrounded by houses. She said she saw the house that was eventually demolished.

"It had lace curtains. A family had raised their kids there," Bastedo said. "I'm sorry, that's drastically different from a parking lot wrapped around a house."

Bastedo said aldermen have a duty to protect the property values of constituents.

Asked about Bastedo's and Levin's views, Daniel said, "Emily is absolutely correct, and Scott is absolutely incorrect."

In his speech, Levin noted the City Council underwent training a couple of years ago. That was before it voted for a sober living home's zoning request, which neighbors opposed.

This fall, the mayor said he would bring in experts to train the City Council and the Zoning and Planning Commission on zoning matters. The training would be open to the public.

"I think this will be very valuable," he said. "It will help us as we go forward."

In early May, Patch alerted then-Alderwoman Dannee Polomsky about the dropped property values near Roberto's.

Through a public records request with York Township, Patch obtained documents indicating that both Levin and Alderwoman Noel Talluto inquired about the assessments in the days and weeks after Patch's alert.

Mayor Scott Levin's speech on Roberto's Pizzeria's effect on nearby property values:

The York Township Assessor a few months ago or maybe two months ago announced the decision to lower the equalized assessed value, EAV, of the two houses that are adjacent to the Roberto's parking lot and that has generated some new debate. But I think an understanding of some of the nuances is being overlooked.

First, with respect to the properties adjacent to Roberto's, the assessor has adopted her own policy by discounting EAV by 20 percent for any property that is located adjacent to a parking lot, irrespective of any facts that are unique to that property at issue.

I take no issue with the assessor's policy. That may be right, it may be wrong, but it's a uniformly applied policy. It must, however, be recognized that the fact that the assessor discounts by 20 percent of the EAV is not directly related to what the effect will be on that particular property.

It must also be recognized for us as a council that a conditional use application is a legal proceeding that starts before our Zoning and Planning Commission. The decision of the commission must be based on evidence and neither the number of residents protesting nor layman opinion about value is considered evidence. Property values must be based on expert opinion by licensed appraisers or other professional real estate people.

A property owner's testimony on what he or she believes will be the effect of a parking lot on any adjacent property is not legal evidence. The only evidence introduced to the commission with respect to the parking lots' effect on property values was Roberto's expert, who testified that there would be no significant impact on property values.

The commission voted to approve the conditional use permit and allow Roberto's to build the parking lot. The decision was based on the evidence before the commission. The decision by the commission is then sent to the City Council for final action and is initially assigned to our own Development, Planing and Zoning Committee.

In my 12 years on the council, it has been my personal belief that the role of the DPZ is to perform a review of the commission's work to make sure everything is in order. The DPZ, in my opinion, should not substitute its decision for that of the commission, unless it finds there are new circumstances such as a negotiated resolution between the (project developer and the objectors) or that something that has been overlooked that was significant and importantly no new evidence may be heard by the DPZ.

Only evidence that may be considered is that which was introduced before the commission. It's improper for DPZ committee member to substitute his or her own common sense view instead of considering the decision of the commission and the evidence introduced. When we do a conditional use proceeding, it's a legal proceeding. We may soon see one of our decisions appealed, and if it is, it goes to the Circuit Court of DuPage County, and ultimately, it may be appealed to a higher court beyond that.

In this case, the City Council properly reviewed the commission's decision and the evidence introduced before it and then upheld the commission's report. Roberto's neighbors did not introduce any legal evidence before the commission that there would be a significant impact on property values.

Moreover, the assessor's policy of reducing EAV by 20 percent on any property located adjacent to a parking lot would not itself be considered evidence of an impact on property values.

Finally, the commission, the DPZ and the City Council each recognize the seriousness of their work and the obligation to balance the rights of the applicant against those of adjacent property owners. As with many zoning cases, the Roberto's case was difficult, and no one knows it more than I do. But it was handled in an entirely appropriate manner.

Just as we did with the sober home issue that we faced a couple of years ago, we brought in experts to train us on housing issues at that time, which was very helpful in helping us understand our role and the decision that we would make.

This fall, it's my intent to bring in experts to train the City Council and the Zoning and Planning Commission and no matter how expert I or others, including the commission members, may think they are, I think this will be very valuable. It will help as we go forward and it will also help us in the emphasis in addition to general zoning use training will be on conditional use applications, which are probably the most difficult applications that we deal with as a council. This training will be open to the public and will help us all better understand how those proceedings occur.