Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review Multifamily Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals finds Design Review Board record adequate on Capitol Drive redevelopment; remand issue resolved
Summary
After a circuit-court remand, the Shorewood Board of Appeals reviewed the Design Review Board's December 19, 2024 record and found it adequate to support the DRB's conclusion that the new multi-family project at 2418–2428 East Capitol Drive would not cause substantial depreciation to neighboring properties.
The Village of Shorewood Board of Appeals voted to find the record generated by the Design Review Board on December 19, 2024, adequate to support the DRB’s finding that the multi-family redevelopment at 2418–2428 East Capitol Drive would not cause substantial depreciation to the applicant’s property or neighboring properties.
The item traces to a 2022 DRB approval of the project’s design elements that neighbors challenged to the Board of Appeals, then to circuit court. The court remanded the matter for a narrower showing: whether the DRB’s consideration and record adequately addressed the ordinance requirement that the DRB find the proposal would not contribute to “substantial depreciation” of neighboring properties.
Village counsel and the developer’s counsel asked the board to accept the DRB’s supplemental record from December 19, 2024, which included an audio-recorded discussion by DRB members that the court said was missing from the original file. Attorney Joe Worth, who represented the village in circuit court, told the Board of Appeals that the DRB members had reviewed the March 2022 materials, discussed the design elements and “closed discussion to allow the meeting minutes to reflect that we, as a design review board, do not anticipate substantial depreciation of this building and neighboring buildings.”
Attorney McCurdy Sincotta, representing the East Capitol Neighbors Association, argued the DRB should have held a supplemental hearing that would allow parties to introduce new factual evidence about property-value impacts rather than rely on board members’ recollection. Sincotta cited case law preventing a governmental decisionmaker from supplementing the record with new evidence on remand and urged the Board of Appeals to remand for a fresh evidentiary hearing.
After considering both sides and reviewing the DRB meeting video and related materials, the Board of Appeals voted that the DRB’s December 19 record satisfied the circuit court’s directive and was adequate for the court’s review. The board’s motion passed with the recorded votes in the transcript: Wendy Smith, Dan/John Tuenhoff, Scott Waligora and Kevin Matthews voted to accept the record; Steven Isaacson recorded an abstention.
The decision returns the matter to circuit court for final review; the court will decide whether the remand has been satisfied. The board’s action does not change the current physical status of the development; it determines only whether the DRB’s record suffices under the court’s remand order.
