Glenview board approves fourth amendment in ongoing 1850 Glenview project

With partial but passionate dissent in an eventual 4-2 approval, the Glenview board of trustees granted a fourth amendment to the purchase and sale agreement with The Drake Group on the property at 1850 Glenview Road.

The nearly 1-acre site, purchased from Bess Hardware in December 2016 and adopted by village ordinance in March 2020 for a 68-unit, mixed-use development, currently is under litigation in Station Place Townhouse Condominium Association, et al, vs. Village of Glenview.

In a court hearing last week, hours before the village board meeting, three of the plaintiff's five counts were dismissed. The remaining counts - denial of substantive due process and violations of the Open Meetings Act - were scheduled for court status on Feb. 11.

While the case remains in court The Drake Group is challenged to obtain a clear title or title insurance by the closing date. In a third amendment approved on July 20, 2020, to the original purchase and sale agreement between the village and The Drake Group in June 2018, the closing date had been re-established to Jan. 19, 2021.

Thus, the board on Tuesday considered issuing a fourth amendment to extend the closing date to the earlier of 60 days after Glenview is able to deliver a clear title, or 60 days after the final resolution of the lawsuit.

Initially, the board heard from LaRue Highsmith, a frequent contributor to public comment. He suggested that another extension "effectively usurps the authority" of a new board to be determined in this April's election.

"The incoming board may have to deal with different circumstances than those that presently exist," Highsmith said Tuesday, the board's 20th remote meeting under the pandemic.

"To tie their hands in the matter that is being decided tonight is, in my opinion, disrespectful to the new board and will be perceived as such by many citizens of Glenview, myself included," he said.

Trustee Mike Jenny, however, later countered that it's "a small group of people who, in effect, are holding the rest of the community hostage in court through no control of the village or the developer," he said.

"(W)e voted to approve this project after a very public, very transparent process where everyone was allowed to let their opinions be heard. And I think that we need to move forward and support this decision the way it's been presented, as amended tonight in Amendment Four," Jenny said.

While trustee Debby Karton was confident in the board's processes and believed the project was subject to "frivolous lawsuits," she also thought time was up on allowing extensions to the purchase and sales agreement.

A 16-year trustee who is not seeking reelection in April, Karton expressed her frustration and anger with this episode. She called her eventual "no" vote on a further amendment her "protest vote."

"We have done so many amazing things in the 16 years that I have been on this board, and to have this be one of the last things that I'm going to be a part of, it's so disappointing, and I'm voting no," Karton said.

"I just wanted the community to know why I'm changing my vote, to just say how sorry I am that this isn't resolved and that it's turning out the way it is."

Trustee Mary Cooper followed suit. She said she bumped into multiple residents on Tuesday who asked if a fourth amendment would pass, or if it could be halted.

"I just feel it's time to stop this and say, just do it or don't do it, and then move on," Cooper said.

Trustee John Hinkamp, among the motion's four supportive voters, sought to separate a proposal that had already been agreed upon from the current situation.

"The purpose is to allow the proper closure, to issue a clean title for something that neither The Drake Group nor the Village of Glenview has any control over," he said.

"It's in the hands of the courts, the courts have been slowed by COVID. The extensions aren't to provide cover for Drake or us having second thoughts, it's to cover for an ongoing litigation. So I think it's only fair that we allow the process to play through," he said.

Siding with the "ayes," trustee Karim Khoja stated his case simply: "If the developer can't close, it is 100 percent our fault that we can't give him clear title, and it's our responsibility to give clear title to anything you sell."