Land swap around law firm’s property
Crosby Theodore, which leases 1817 Church St. to the law firm Jackson LLP, has been in a years-long legal dispute with the city, affordable housing developer Housing Opportunity Development Corporation (HODC) and Mount Pisgah Ministry Inc., a church located next to the landmark property, over the proposed development.
Those three entities were involved in a complicated “land swap,” with Mt. Pisgah and HODC agreeing to a deal in December 2020, under which HODC would construct a four-story, 33-unit mixed-use retail and residential building, with street level shops and affordable apartments above where Mt. Pisgah’s storefront church is now located.
Mt. Pisgah would then move to a new three-story building, featuring a 200-person worship space, constructed on city-owned property at the corner of Church and Darrow.
The deal, the appellate judges noted in their review, required a partial swap between the two entities and city, with the arrangement contingent on the city selling 1805 Church St. to Mt. Pisgah.
The city has invested heavily in the project, approving $4 million in funding for construction, including a $2 million developer fee, with a majority of funds to be paid through grants, public funds and tax credits, the appellate court opinion noted.
Big city investment in project
Lawyers for Crosby Theodore filed a circuit court suit in July 2023, naming HODC, its Executive Director Richard Koenig and the city as defendants.
The firm alleged the development was approved without proper notice, and that demolition and construction could release contaminants and cause structural damage to its building, which was constructed in 1925.
The development site for many years housed a gas station and underground fuel storage tanks owned by Chevron.
During the three-day circuit court trial last May, Erin Jackson, a company representative for Crosby Theodore whose law firm occupies the site, testified the firm had made significant restoration efforts to the building, which had previously suffered stormwater damage. She became concerned, she said, that “the very large building [proposed] with no ability to absorb water next door to us would eventually cause a deluge of storm water into our building.”
The firm’s suit noted that the area surrounding the development “includes single-family housing, multifamily housing, one-to-two-story commercial buildings, the high school, food establishments, a youth community center and churches.”
Land use ‘incompatible’ with neighborhood character?
“It is incompatible with the character of nearby properties to allow HODC to build a monolithic supportive housing complex when HODC has shown its inability to maintain health and safe conditions in much smaller properties in Evanston,” the suit states.
During debate of the project, HODC’s management of a different building at 319 Dempster St. had come under fire for repeated complaints.
The firm alleged that city staff advocated for HODC, and the developer and Mt. Pisgah were all but guaranteed to win the city-owned vacant parcels at 1805 Church St. and 1708-10 Darrow, in “a scheme to combine, redo and redraw the five [total] parcels to Plaintiff’s severe detriment.”
“Members of the local community have spoken about their wish for bookstores, coffee shops, banks, and similar businesses to be located on the corner lot,” the firm’s complaint stated.
Safeguards reflected in ordinance
Both the city and HODC rebutted the claim of irreparable harm, noting the safeguards outlined in various ordinances in support of the project, which included a construction management plan, collaboration with the city’s Preservation Commission and performance standards for stormwater management and soil removal.
Koenig testified at the trial that he had been aware of the environmental controls laid out in a second remediation from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, including rules regarding soil excavation and removal.
The appellate court said in its review that Koenig also testified that soil testing conducted on the corner did not identify any contaminants that exceeded levels identified by IEPA as dangerous. If there was a restriction against residential use of the property, HODC would not have submitted a bid, he said.
“Members of the local community have spoken about their wish for bookstores, coffee shops, banks, and similar businesses to be located on the corner lot,” the firm’s complaint stated.
Safeguards reflected in ordinance
Both the city and HODC rebutted the claim of irreparable harm, noting the safeguards outlined in various ordinances in support of the project, which included a construction management plan, collaboration with the city’s Preservation Commission and performance standards for stormwater management and soil removal.
Koenig testified at the trial that he had been aware of the environmental controls laid out in a second remediation from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, including rules regarding soil excavation and removal.
The appellate court said in its review that Koenig also testified that soil testing conducted on the corner did not identify any contaminants that exceeded levels identified by IEPA as dangerous. If there was a restriction against residential use of the property, HODC would not have submitted a bid, he said.
To Jackson’s concerns that HODC had never provided her copies of its construction management plan, the justices pointed to Koenig’s testimony that Crosby Theodore had allegedly refused to meet with him, HODC and its architects regarding certain aspects of the plaintiff’s building, such as the depth of its basement, to match HODC’s construction. (The justices maintained that Jackson’s testimony “corroborated” this when she was advised not to meet with HODC once litigation began.)
The appellate court’s opinion, meanwhile, argued that Jackson’s submission of the applicable ordinances rebuts her own speculation that the city was not concerned about the damage to the plaintiff’s historical property, and noted that conditions were specifically added to the development plan following various public hearings.
“Such conditions required HODC to work with the Preservation Commission to prevent any structural damage to plaintiff’s property, as well as to ensure that its building complied with applicable water management regulations, which Koenig testified to having done in January 2024,” the justices concluded.
Affirming the circuit court’s decision, the justices quoted from a 2015 case, writing that “the requirement of the showing of imminent injury is not satisfied by proof of a speculative possibility of injury and such relief will not be granted to allay unfounded fears or misapprehensions.”
This particular ruling denied Crosby Theodore’s preliminary injunction request, but hearings on the plaintiff’s main case against the city, HODC and Mt. Pisgah continue. (The city is using a private law firm, Angel Glink, P.C.). Cook County Circuit Court Judge Cecilia A. Horan has set May 20 as the date for a status hearing on written discovery in that case.
Crosby Theodore has filed for multiple counts of relief, including injunctive relief to prevent substantial damage to the environment, public health and welfare from the planned demolition and construction.
Their “historic building is nearly 100 years old, its original south-facing windows are historically significant and aesthetically unique, but they offer poor insulation and air filtration capabilities,” the firm said in its original complaint.
