Open Request to HPC and City Council

The following are open letters to the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission and to the Woodstock City Council:

1. To the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission:

Chairman Allen Stebbins and members of the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission (Don Frick, Beverly Ganschow, Lucia Matlock, Erica Wilson):

Please include the following item on the Agenda for your October 5, 2009 Regular Meeting. Please do not cancel this meeting.

My request is to include "Action on the pending Nomination of the building popularly known as Grace Hall for Landmark Designation including, but not limited to, quoting specific sections of the Woodstock City Code to the City Council, restating the requirements for Landmark designation, restating the supporting statements of Landmarks Illinois, the Illinois Historic Preservation Commission (or Agency), and the National Trust for Historic Preservation (or the actual name of such agencies), and demanding that the City Council "untable" this nomination and take action at its October 6, 2009 Regular Meeting and approve the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission.

2. To the Woodstock City Council

Mayor Brian Sager and Members of the Woodstock City Council (Dick Ahrens, Julie Dillon, Maureen Larson, RB Thompson, Mike Turner, Ralph Webster),

Good morning, Mayor Sager and Members of the Woodstock City Council,

In the absence of any acknowledgement or reply to my September 24 message, I'll assume it didn't reach you and I am re-sending it (below).

Please insert a "placeholder" in the Agenda for the October 6, 2009 meeting of the Woodstock City Council for consideration of and approval of the nomination by the Historic Preservation Commission for Landmark Designation of Grace Hall. This matter is of the utmost importance, in view of the pending demolition permit you have approved. It will be too late, once the wrecking ball swings against the first wall of Grace Hall.

The precedent of a "placeholder" has been established.

May I ask that each of you make an independent assessment of the historic and architectural value of Grace Hall and that your decision not be influenced by that of any other Council member? You have the right, the duty and the responsibility to follow the City Code, first and foremost. While you might have a personal opinion that is outside the Code, it seems to me that you are obligated to observe and follow the City Code. If you don't like the Code, then change it.

But this Landmark Designation nomination must be construed under the existing Code.

Thank you.

Gus Philpott

Landmark Nomination - when to be decided?

Yesterday's letter from Esther Hall Gordon, now of Battle Creek, Michigan and former resident of the Woodstock Children's Home from 1963-1971 and Woodstock High School graduate '71, again reminded me once again that, as readers know, Mayor Sager and the Woodstock City Council tabled the nomination of Grace Hall for Landmark Designation at a prior City Council meeting, just before approving demolition of Grace Hall. That demolition is subject to approval of the first building permit for the South Phase of the WCLS special use permit to building additional little duplexes.

On September 14th I asked the City Council, at its joint meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission, to "untable" this nomination and act on it. My request elicited no response from the City Council.

The City Council would like this issue to just die and go away. Residents (voters!) cannot allow this to occur. The City Council must act responsibly and not continue to ignore the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission. They didn't deny it at the previous meeting; they "tabled" it. This means it is still on the table!

The honorable thing for them to do is place this nomination on the Agenda, before a permit request ever reaches the Plan Department, and act on it.

If they approve it, that will slow, stall or eliminate demolition. If they deny the landmark designation, then that opens the door for legal action against the City by the Historic Preservation Commission and interested residents for not following its own Historic Preservation ordinance. The building absolutely meets (and exceeds) the minimum requirements under the ordinance for Landmark status.

Of course, if the City Council approves Landmark status for Grace Hall and refuses to issue a demolition permit, then that will prompt legal action by Woodstock Christian Life Services, through its attorney, Mark Gummerson. When was it - a year ago? - that he intimidated legal action could be expected if the City didn't approve WCLS plans? It was subtle, but every member of the City Council had to hear the threat of legal action.

The Woodstock City Council needs a second, and fully independent, legal opinion on the question of superiority of WCLS' request for special use permit over the Landmark nomination. It is my belief that an attorney who is an expert in historic preservation will advise the City that Landmark designation, regardless of when pronounced, trumps demolition of a building with historic and architectural value.

At the present time, the City is relying on advice that, just because WCLS jumped in line first, its claim is superior to the Historic Preservation Commission's nomination. 'Tain't so.

There are seven members of the City Council. What Woodstock needs is seven independent members of the City Council! Men and women who will investigate, think through and make their own independent decisions on issues. All leaders; no followers.

Will this City Council have the courage to address the Landmark nomination without further malingering?

No City Council Meeting Jan. 6

Just in case you are planning to start off the new year by attending a Woodstock (Ill.) City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 6, 2009, don't.

The first City Council meeting of 2009 will be Tuesday, January 20. Watch for the Agenda to be published on the city's website about January 15-16

Think anyone will be there? Or will (almost) everyone be home in front of the TV to watch the Inauguration Day ceremonies and celebrations? Of course, you could just set your VCR to record them.

Or if City Council meetings were broadcast on a Comcast public service channel, you wouldn't have to miss a thing.

An involved resident in Island Lake videotapes Village Board meetings there and posts them on her blog. Would Woodstock residents pay more attention to the goings-on in city government if they could watch council meetings from the warmth and comfort of their own homes?

HPC down to two members

Woodstock's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is down to two members - incoming Chairman Allen Stebbins and Erica Wilson.

Thanks to Lucia Matlock, Merida Johns and Tim Art for their service.

If you are interested in serving on this important Commission, please contact Allen Stebbins or City Hall and express your interest.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission should be Monday, January 5, 2009, at 7:00PM in the City Council chambers at City Hall. Watch the City's website for the Agenda, which will confirm the meeting date and time.

An important item for the Agenda is discussion about how to get the recent recommendation of the HPC for Landmark status of Grace Hall on an early Agenda of the City Council. This matter should not be allowed to languish in the twilight zone at City Hall until just before the wrecking ball starts to swing at 318 Christian Way.

I have written previously about my suspicion that, when the recommendation reaches the City Council, there will be a strong objection from Woodstock Christian Life Services that no valid Public Hearing was held by the HPC.

The opinion of the City Attorney is that the November 10, 2008, meeting of the HPC was a valid Public Hearing, even though there was no testimony under oath, no audio recording of the meeting and no transcript of the proceedings.

Musta Missed It - Filing Deadline

This week's The Woodstock Independent carries a short "For your information" piece about the 2009 local elections. Mark Indyke will challenge Brian Sager for the Mayor's spot, and Mike Turner, Dick Ahrens and RB Thompson will not have opposition. For this reason there will be no primary.

Last Monday at 5:00PM was the closing date/time for nominating petitions. Will that get the prize for one of the best kept secrets in 2008 around Woodstock?

Where were the drums to round up challengers and contest the seats? Hello? Is anyone home? The lights are on. I think they're still on.

Let this be the last year that incumbents run for office without challenge. Every major position in the City, County or State should have more than one candidate.

The December 15 deadline should not prevent write-in challengers. Does anyone know the rules, if any, to qualify for write-in candidates? Or if you, as a write-in candidate, get more votes than either Indyke or Sager, will you be Woodstock's next Mayor?

Of course, after last Tuesday's marathon until 1:00 A.M., who'd want to be mayor or a member of the City Council?

Chamber of Commerce - Pro or Con?

What is the position of the Woodstock Chamber of Commerce on the proposed development of the Woodstock Christian Life Services (WCLS) property and the demolition of Grace Hall (Harrison House)?

At the June Plan Commission meeting, the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce gave sworn testimony that indicated that the Chamber supported the project saying, according to the Minutes, "He does feel this project is in the best interest of the community."

The "project" includes the demolition of Grace Hall.

However, the Chamber Board had never discussed the WCLS project and had never voted on a position which could then be put forward by the Executive Director.

At the July Plan Commission I raised the issue of whether the Plan Commission had heard correct testimony in June.

The next day the Chamber President told me that the project would be discussed at the August meeting. Was it?

The Chamber President admonished me to validate my facts and information in the future before publicizing information about the chamber. On this past Monday I emailed her to ask if the Chamber Board had adopted a position on the project, what the position was, and when it was adopted. That was Monday. This is Wednesday night. In the absence of a reply, I can only assume that the project has not received the blessing of the Chamber Board.

Without that action the June sworn testimony at the Plan Commission meeting remains inaccurate. It may have been the personal opinion of the man speaking, but it was not the position of the organization he introduced himself as representing and on whose behalf he spoke.

The City Council must assume on Tuesday night that the Chamber of Commerce does not have a position on either the WCLS project or the demolition of Grace Hall, and it should disregard the portion of the public record which includes information that may be in error.

"Time Indefinite" become Definite ...

... and so quickly, too.

Remember the polished phrase at the recent City Council meeting, when the Mayor and the counsel for Woodstock Christian Life Services did their little dance around the next time WCLS would be back for approval? Recall the "time indefinite" phrase, nicely twirled and tossed out at the public (like they might not understand the twisted jargon used to confuse the public about just when WCLS would be back)?

And here they come! On Tuesday (that's this Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 7:00PM) the WCLS will be back in the face of the City Council to seek approval of its project, presumably including the demolition of Grace Hall.

Did they have all their promised meetings with neighbors and residents? Did "collaboration" occur? You know, that fancy, 13-letter word that is supposed to result in harmonious, thorough discussions between interested parties? Did any of the promised meetings occur?

How did WCLS get everything scheduled and arranged, and completed, in such a short time that it can be back on the City Council's agenda so quickly? Or is it ready to just take another run at the City Council?

Has any of the City Council been contacted directly by WCLS or any of its representatives or lawyers? Is that called lobbying? Should such contact be disclosed on Tuesday by members of the City Council as soon as the issue is opened for discussion? Will any member of the City Council have to recuse himself (herself) for conflict of interest? That hasn't happened yet. Are there any unannounced conflicts? Prior business dealings? Relatives who are residents of any WCLS property? Ever any inquiry about placing a relative there?

Polite, Forceful and Hopping Mad!

Two Woodstock residents laid into the City Council last night and expressed high displeasure with the “community policing” program of the Woodstock Police Department.

I arrived shortly after the beginning of the meeting, when a woman was reading a sharply-worded, well-written statement to the Council and asking pointed questions. Her remarks were followed by those of her husband, a retired police officer. He spoke well and without notes. The gist of their complaints is that the strong police presence around the Square has drained off protection levels elsewhere in Woodstock.

Their home in the Prairie Ridge subdivision was apparently damaged to the extent of $12,000, and they and other residents are concerned about the scarcity of police protection in the middle of the night; say, between 9:00PM and 4:00AM, when there might be one sergeant and three officers on duty. It’s easy to imagine that one serious call can require all four, and not just briefly.

What is the real extent of gang activity in Woodstock? My sense is that much information about Woodstock gang activity is not released to the press; if it is, then the press is choosing to be selective in its reporting of it to the public.

The law-abiding People of Woodstock are not going to tolerate gang activity, but we’ve got to know about it in order to take effective action against it.

More details will follow. I stayed at the Council meeting to hear the consultants discuss the parking study.

Furniture Tossed in Parkway

How long should neighbors have to look at a pile of discarded furniture before it is removed?

This pile is at 134/136 First Street. Neighbors, passersby, and the owners of the $450,000 rowhouses of Woodstock Station get a nice view of this mess.

The City Council should act now to create a very tight and immediately-enforceable ordinance, giving a property owner 24 hours to remove such a mess or the City will remove it at the landlord's expense. How'd it get there? The property owner may have had to evict his tenants, and then he cleared the rental space of the tenant's personal property and furnishings.

An eviction is an unpleasant circumstance. It's the unfortunate tenant who finds himself in such a predicament and who must abandon some or all of his furniture, for lack of money to move it or store it.

But should the property owner be permitted to toss it on the curb, where who knows how long it will remain? No way! The property owner should arrange either for storage or for same-day removal by Marengo Disposal Company. And if MDC won't come until Wednesday? Then put out Tuesday night or Wednesday morning.

This isn't the only pile in town. Normally, these piles show up about the first of the month, not the 23rd.

Does the City Council have the "intestinal fortitude" to get tough with landlords? Does the developer of Woodstock Station have any remaining clout with the City Council?

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT

Woodstock Water Issue

At last night's City Council meeting a Woodstock resident addressed the City Council about a serious, ongoing water problem in her backyard. Her family and she had flooding problems in last August's flood, and this spring she has had serious problems with standing water in her backyard. They live on West Jackson Street, approximately one block south of the library.

She spoke during the Public Comment period of the meeting and presented her detailed story of efforts to get the City to seriously consider the problem, which is being caused by water pooling in her yard, causing very rapid weed growth. She spoke about her frustration at trying the deal with the City and get some resolution to the problem. She had her facts all lined up. She spoke clearly and directly. She spoke about certain City employees who had come to her residence and then about the problems trying to get them to come back or return calls.

One of the best things she did last night was ask the City do DO something. Not "try" to do something. Not think about it. Not study the problem. Fix it! When no commitment was forthcoming, she called them on that. And she got a commitment, finally, that there would be action today.

And today there was action. Late this afternoon there were two City trucks there and a backhoe in the neighbor's yard. She was told that an underground pipe had been found clogged with mud.

And she has already notified the City of a correction to her comments last night. She knew her problem had been ongoing for two months, but last night she referred to the problems having started in May. Today she realized she had meant to say "April" and she called to have the record corrected.

What experience have you had with Public Works? Do you have some barbs to sling their way or some praise to heap on them? Any particular employees who deserve your comments?

Here's a hint for those who represent the City. When a resident is speaking about a serious concern, do your best to stifle your yawn. If you just can't hold it back, at lease cover your mouth.

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT

No Tickets for Ducks - Is That Legal?

At last night’s Woodstock City Council meeting I addressed them on the topic of the infamous ducks, Jenny and Bean, which are believed to be back in residence at 1552 Cord Grass Trail in the Savanna Grove community.

In particular, I requested the Council to direct enforcement of the existing City Code section that prohibits farm animals, including ducks, within the city limits of Woodstock. I am sympathetic to the four-year-old granddaughter of the woman who bought a house in that community without reading the Covenants of the Savanna Grove Homeowners Association, but her property is in violation of the City Code if the ducks are still there.

I explained that City Attorney Richard Flood had stated two weeks ago, as recorded in the Minutes of the October 2, 2007, City Council meeting, “that the purpose of the amendment (Special Use Ordinance) is to remove the City from the process and allow the Homeowners Association to make their [sic] decision.” That statement of Mr. Flood is partially correct. It does remove the City, but only after the Homeowners Association takes positive action to change its Covenants and to permit the ducks at that home. Unless and until the Homeowners Association does so, the existing City Code applies, and this means No Ducks.

It is my understanding that, in the two weeks since the Special Use Ordinance was passed, no citations have been issued against the offending ducks. Since Woodstock has a law on the books prohibiting them, one has to question why there has been no enforcement.

After I spoke, Mayor Sager stated quite emphatically that, reminding me that I had been at the October 2nd City Council meeting and had heard him say then, it was the intent of the City Council that the City would no longer take an interest in the ducks.

The contingency in the Special Use Ordinance provides that the ducks cannot be on the property until the Homeowners Association approves. Or, as the Ordinance reads, “The two ducks, specifically known as Jenny and Bean, shall only be permitted to be kept on the property, pursuant to the Savanna Grove Homeowners Association approval…”

Therefore, until that approval is granted (this might take 2-3 months and there is no guarantee that it will ever be approved), the ducks are not permitted. And, if they are not permitted but are there (and they were there when Mrs. Miller stood before the Council on October 2 and agreed that they would not be there until the Homeowners Association approved), why isn’t the City taking enforcement action?

The BIG question is, can the City Council direct, order, require, or influence a City employee (or department or administrator) to ignore, overlook or otherwise disregard a City Ordinance and avoid enforcement against a violation that surfaced because of a complaint made to the City about the presence of the ducks? Can it?

Obviously, it can and has. BUT, is it legal to do so?

The City Attorney, Richard Flood, was not at the October 16th City Council meeting, but a representative of his office was there.

Is it the obligation of the City Attorney to step forward and inform the City that they cannot avoid enforcing the law? Or must he wait to give his opinion until he is asked for it. Speak, only when spoken to? We learned this as kids or, at least, some of us were told that from time to time.

I asked for fair and firm enforcement; you know, equal justice for all. Gee, what a concept! How can the City pick and choose which laws to enforce? Should it only enforce certain laws? Or only against certain people? Or not against certain people?

A friend this week said, “Isn’t it a shame, with so many U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq, that we are worrying about ducks in someone’s back yard?” That person is absolutely right.

There shouldn’t be any “worry” at all about the ducks. The Code Enforcement Officer should be there every day with his ticket book. Just write the ticket and meet Mrs. Miller in court. There doesn’t have to be any antagonism. She is violating the law, so let her answer for it and pay the fines. When her granddaughter asks why the City is being so mean, she can just say, “They aren’t being mean, honey. We are breaking the law, and so we have to pay for it.”

Paved Parkway - Bad Precedent?

The Woodstock City Council has started down a slippery slope by approving a request from a homeowner to pave the parking area in front of his house that is in the City’s right-of-way. Often referred to as “parkway” this is the section of ground between the street and a sidewalk. The grass thereon is maintained by the homeowner and creates a buffer between the sidewalk and street.

As we all know, and as some are learning after visits from the City’s Code Enforcement Officer, it is illegal to park a vehicle in the parkway. Although it appears to be the homeowner’s private property, it is – sort of. It is subject to the City’s right-of-way, or easement, on the private land of the homeowner. This is why he must cut the grass there but cannot park a vehicle there.

This changed recently for the property at 421 Stewart Street, when the City Council on May 1, 2007, approved an amendment to the City Code at Title 5, Chapter 3, Section 13.E.3.(5)(A), (E) and (G).

The property owner at 421 Stewart Street has paved (with asphalt) the parkway in front of his house, so that he can park two light trucks there. When I drove by this morning, the two trucks were there. No vehicle was parked in the driveway, and the garage door was closed, so I could not see whether there was a vehicle in the garage. Certainly, at least one of the trucks could be parked in the regular driveway, and maybe the other could be parked at the person’s business.

This is a dangerous precedent in Woodstock. Will every property owner who wants almost-street parking overnight now approach the City Council and say, “Well, you let him do it on Stewart Street”?

The new ordinance allows the owner, until June 1, 2009, to park two light trucks there overnight and not to be subject to the 30-minute parking restriction between 2:00-6:00AM. So, what will happen on June 1, 2009? You can bet that the property owner will be back at the City Council early in 2009 to request an extension or a permanent order.

What will happen if the City Council refuses? Nothing is the special ordinance for this property owner requires him to tear up the asphalt and put in grass again. How did they slip up on this one? That would have been an easy condition to impose, and now it’s too late. The neighbors are stuck with the patch of asphalt where there used to be grass.