The Great Room decision was postponed again, this time until April 6.
The Evanston Zoning Board of Appeals met March 16 to determine whether Northwestern’s dining facility at 610 Haven St. is a violation of the city’s zoning ordinance. Though lawyers on each side made final arguments and the record was closed, the board will not give a verdict until next month.
“Given the hour, I will entertain a motion to continue the case for the purpose of the board having its own deliberation,” said Lori Summers, the provisional chairwoman for the evening at about 12:30 a.m.
The conflict over the Great Room began when Evanston residents George and Andrea Gaines, who live on the 2200 block of Orrington Avenue, filed a petition in November. They said the recent change in the Great Room’s hours violates Evanston zoning law.
The Great Room is in a T-1 zoning district, which precludes commercial land use as well as dormitory use. Since the residence hall the Great Room is in predates that zoning restriction, it can legally operate as long as its use does not change. NU’s representatives said the Great Room is considered an accessory use to the dorm, to which the restrictions about continued use do not apply.
Those opposed to the facility said its late night hours and undergraduate client base constitute a change in use. They also said its late closing time constitutes what the zoning ordinance refers to as an unauthorized “increase in intensity.”
Art Newman, the Gaines’ attorney and former First Ward alderman, said he would appeal the decision in the Cook County Circuit Court if the board found the Great Room not in violation.
Newman and Priya Harjani, associate general counsel for NU, each brought witnesses before the board to determine whether the use of the Great Room had altered since changing hands from Seabury-Western Theological Seminary to NU in July.
Jilian Lopez, Associated Student Government vice president for external relations, was a witness for NU and described the petition more than 1,000 students signed to keep the Great Room open. She said she used the facility “about two to three times each week.” She also said late night options are necessary for many students.
“If you’re involved in extracurriculars, you don’t start studying until eight or 10 at night,” the Weinberg senior said.
Several other students attended, including ASG President Mike McGee, who said he had offered the University his support upon first finding out about the challenge against the Great Room.
“I said we’re willing to help the University out any way we can with these issues,” the Communication senior said.
Before the lawyers’ closing arguments, several neighbors voiced concerns about the adverse impact the Great Room could have on their property values.
Ald. Judy Fiske (1st), whose constituents neighbor the Great Room, also spoke. She said the mere change from serving seminary graduate students to serving undergraduate students could constitute an increase in intensity, since Seabury-Western served older students than NU’s undergraduates.
“We’re talking adults here,” she said, describing the seminary students who used to use the facility.
In Harjani’s closing statement, she said the appellant’s argument was based on what might happen, not what has actually happened.
“It’s all based on fear and speculation,” she said. She said the only real effect the neighborhood has seen, a drop in property values, “has everything to do with the economy and nothing to do with the Great Room.”
Harjani said the suggestions in the Gaines’ appeal refer to the operation of the facility, over which the ZBA has no control.
“There’s no basis in the zoning ordinance that says when we have to stop cooking and when our workers have to leave,” she said. “There’s no merit or basis for any of the decisions Mr. Gaines is asking for today.”
In Newman’s closing statement, he told the board not to be swayed by the student attachment to the Great Room.
“We’re not talking about whether the use is popular,” he said. “It’s about whether the use is legal.”[email protected]
