City of Chi. v. Eychaner

• Decision Date: 21 January 2015
• Docket Number: No. 1–13–1833.,1–13–1833.
• Citation: 26 N.E.3d 501
• Parties: The CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Fred J. EYCHANER, Defendant–Appellant (Unknown Others, Defendants).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

26 N.E.3d 501

The CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Fred J. EYCHANER, Defendant–Appellant (Unknown Others, Defendants).

No. 1–13–1833.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Jan. 21, 2015.

Thomas Geselbracht, of DLA Piper LLP, of Chicago, for appellant.

Stephen R. Patton, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Myriam Kasper and Justin A. Houppert, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee.

OPINION

Justice HYMAN

delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The plaintiff City of Chicago (City) exercised its power of eminent domain to take defendant Fred Eychaner's property and transfer it to the Blommer Chocolate Company. Eychaner filed a traverse and motion to dismiss, challenging the taking as unconstitutional, which the trial court denied. After a trial on just compensation, a jury valued Eychaner's land at $2.5 million.

¶ 2 Eychaner appeals, arguing: (i) the City may not use eminent domain to take property in a conservation area in the name of economic redevelopment; (ii) the trial court should have granted Eychaner's motion in limine to bar reference to the property's planned manufacturing district (PMD) zoning; (iii) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of how and why the City included Eychaner's land in the PMD because it was relevant to the issue of whether there was a reasonable probability of rezoning; (iv) the City should not have been allowed to add new appraisers that Eychaner had originally retained; (v) the trial court should have allowed appraiser Michael MaRous to testify regarding his opinion that there was a reasonable probability of rezoning; (vi) the trial court should have stricken MaRous's testimony for violating the court's in limine order when he identified Eychaner as his original employer; and (vii) the jury's $2.5 million verdict was the result of a mistaken belief that there was no reasonable probability of rezoning.

¶ 3 We affirm in part and reverse in part, holding: (i) under long-standing precedent, the City may use eminent domain to take property in a conservation area to prevent future blight; (ii) the trial court erred in refusing to exclude reference to the land's PMD zoning, and having so held, (iii) we decline to address the relevancy of how and why the PMD zoning came about; (iv) Eychaner was not prejudiced when the City chose to call witnesses he had formerly retained but had chosen not to call at trial; (v) the trial court erred in limiting MaRous's testimony; and (vi) because of the trial court's curative instruction, no prejudice arose from MaRous's identifying Eychaner as his original employer. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial on just compensation.

¶ 4 BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Eychaner's Property and Rezoning to PMD

¶ 6 Eychaner owned vacant land at the southwest corner of West Grand Avenue and North Jefferson Street (labeled “Eychaner's Land,” infra figure 1). Two blocks south of Eychaner's land stood the Blommer Chocolate Company's Chicago factory at the corner of North DesPlaines Street and West Kinzie Street (labeled “Blommer's Factory”, infra figure 1).

Figure 1.

¶ 7 At the end of 1999, the City proposed the creation of a PMD in the Chicago–Halsted corridor (shaded area in the map, infra figure 2, “Eychaner” and “Blommer” labels added), aimed at protecting the 2,800 industrial jobs located in the area, preventing residential encroachment on the existing manufacturing facilities, and encouraging manufacturers to invest in their facilities.

Figure 2.

¶ 8 The City's municipal code lists five goals behind the creation of PMDs, to: (i) “foster the city's industrial base”; (ii) “maintain the city's diversified economy for the general welfare of its citizens”; (iii) “strengthen existing manufacturing areas that are suitable in size, location and character and which the City Council deems may benefit from designation as a PMD”; (iv) “encourage industrial investment, modernization, and expansion by providing for stable and predictable industrial environments”; and (v) “help plan and direct programs and initiatives to promote growth and development of the city's industrial employment base.” Chicago Municipal Code § 17–6–0401–A (amended Sept. 10, 2014). Residential uses are not permitted within PMDs. See Chicago Municipal Code §§ 17–6–0403–C, 17–6–0403–F (amended Sept. 10, 2014).

¶ 9 The proposed area for the PMD contained nine industrial firms, including the Blommer Chocolate Company's factory, which was located at the southern most part of the PMD. In January 2000, the City held a public meeting regarding the PMD. At the meeting, the area's Alderman noted that there had been increasing conflicts between the residential tenants and the area's existing industry, including complaints about heavy truck traffic at all hours of the day. At the meeting, the City also mentioned that, later in the year, it would conduct an eligibility study for the creation of a tax-incremental financing (TIF) district under the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act. 65 ILCS 5/11–74.4–1 et seq.

(West 2004). At the meeting, the City described Eychaner's land as one of the “two largest sites [in the proposed PMD] that aren't being used as the present time,” and a potential development site.

¶ 10 Blommer also attended the January 2000 meeting and raised concerns about a proposed residential development by CMC Heartland on the other side Kinzie Street, just south of Blommer's factory and just outside the proposed boundaries of the PMD. Blommer noted that there was no buffer zone between itself and the proposed residential development, creating a potential for conflict.

¶ 11 In February 2000, Blommer wrote a letter to the City, objecting to its inclusion in the PMD. Blommer's letter noted that “the purpose of the PMD was to protect manufacturing businesses from residential development,” but the inclusion of Bloomer did not fulfill that purpose. Blommer did not show any interest in Eychaner's land in the letter.

¶ 12 Blommer primarily objected to its inclusion in the PMD because “the vacant land directly South of Blommer [was] scheduled for massive residential development by CMC. Unless the boundary of the PMD was extended to include the CMC property (South of Kinzie and North of the railroad track), there would be no buffer between the heavy industrial use of Blommer's property and the residential development being proposed by CMC.” Blommer took the position that “rather than fight the CMC development, it would be more productive to work together with CMC to find ways to make Blommer's operation more compatible to neighboring residential usage.” Citing three sources of conflict—smell, noise, and traffic—Blommer noted that it had already made plans to minimize complaints about the smell of cocoa bean roasting and plant noise. As to traffic, Blommer, working with the CMC, wanted to acquire the vacant land and parking lot to the east of its factory to use as a staging area for trucks, and alleviate truck congestion on DesPlaines and Kinzie Streets. Blommer also proposed vacating the sections of Hubbard and Jefferson Streets adjacent to its plant.

¶ 13 But even with its plan to reduce the smell, noise, and traffic associated with its operation, Blommer raised the specter that residents would still find its manufacturing operations “intolerable.” If that were the case, the best solution for Blommer would be to relocate, and if forced to move, Blommer noted, “it is hard to imagine another manufacturing concern would be interested in buying our property only to inherit our neighborhood problems.” Blommer concluded that, if it were forced to sell, “not being included in the PMD would provide us with some flexibility in finding another use for the property.”

¶ 14 The City's plan commission held another meeting on the PMD in March 2000. There, a representative from the City's department of planning and development noted that the PMD would send a message to developers that this area was to remain primarily industrial and commercial, and that the PMD would prevent residential development on vacant parcels within its boundaries. At that meeting, Blommer opposed its inclusion in the PMD, repeating the reasons stated in its February 2000 letter. Blommer proposed two solutions: expand the PMD to extend south of Kinzie Street, preventing the residential development, or exclude Blommer from the PMD so that it could sell its land if conflicts arose with the future residents. Members of the Plan Commission expressed a desire to keep Blommer in Chicago. In light of Blommer's and others' objections, the Plan Commission deferred voting to approve the PMD.

¶ 15 In late March 2000, Blommer met with the City regarding its concerns about its inclusion in the PMD. To minimize the impact of nearby residential development, Blommer asked the City to assist it in increasing the size of its industrial campus to create more places for off-street truck staging. Blommer proposed acquiring the land to the north and east of its current factory, and then walling off the expanded campus. This expansion would mitigate neighbors' complaints about noise and trucks. Drawings of Blommer's proposed expansion did not include Eychaner's land (outlined below, infra figure 3, “Eychaner” label added). At the meeting, the City noted that it was conducting an eligibility study for a tax increment financing district, and that Blommer could use the financing to acquire land for its expansion and improve the infrastructure.

Figure 3.

¶ 16 In April 2000, the commissioner of the City's Plan Commission wrote a letter to Blommer expressing “[w]e are committed to keeping quality manufacturing firms, such as [Blommer] in the City. To that end, we are very interested in helping your create a larger ‘industrial campus' as a means to internalize your loading operations, limit traffic impacts on adjacent streets, and provide room to expand.” The commissioner wrote that the Plan Commission wou...