This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Village Mum on Pawnshop Suit Settlement

Records show a deal has been reached in the case of the village's denial of a building permit for a pawnshop in downtown La Grange last year.

Court records indicate a deal has been reached in a federal lawsuit against La Grange village leaders by the owner of a pawnshop who was denied a building permit in downtown La Grange last year. But, Assistant Village Manager Andrianna Peterson said the issue has not been finalized.

"The parties have agreed on the terms of the settlement," she said, adding there are "action steps" to be taken before everything is finalized.

For that reason, Peterson declined to describe settlement terms between the village and the pawnshop owner, Andrew Grayson. Grayson's attorney could not be reached for comment. There are no court dates pending in the case, which is considered closed by the Northern District of Illinois.

Find out what's happening in La Grangewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

In July, Grayson sued Village President Elizabeth Asperger, Village Manager Robert Pilipiszyn, the village board, the La Grange Business Association's then-president, Michael LaPidus, and Cook County, alleging they conspired to violate his rights, preventing him from opening shop in 2009 at 71 S. LaGrange Road. That property is adjacent to village hall, 53 S. LaGrange Road.

Grayson specifically alleged the village changed certain zoning rules after he obtained approval to open the store and obtained a business license. The revised ordinance was then used as the basis to rescind the license and make it impossible for him to open up in a building he had already leased within the C-1 Central Commercial District, commonly considered downtown, the suit states.

Find out what's happening in La Grangewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

After receiving his business license and zoning approval in late May 2009, Grayson spent the next several weeks expending "substantial" amounts in preparation for the shop's opening, according to the suit.

Things began to fall apart, the lawsuit says, around Memorial Day 2009 after he put a sign in the shop window advertising his new business. At that point, LaPidus and village trustees began the effort to prevent the shop's opening, Grayson's suit alleges.

In the suit, Grayson alleges LaPidus sent an e-mail to association members calling for an "urgent meeting." The e-mail said a pawnshop didn't complement existing downtown businesses and would have a "long-term reverberating effect on our property values," the lawsuit contends. A message left for a LaPidus attorney was not immediately returned.

Grayson's suit contends village officials were aware of and attended the meeting, where attendees were urged to push for elimination of the "pawnshop category" from the zoning code, records state.

While Grayson was awaiting permit approval to make interior improvements at the store, the village debated a revised zoning code that "expressly excluded pawnshops" from permitted uses, the suit states.

LaPidus spoke at a June 29, 2009, plan commission meeting where the amendment was discussed, saying businesses such as Grayson's were "water hole(s) for criminals," the lawsuit states.

"La Grange is upwardly mobile and pawnshops are downwardly mobile," LaPidus is quoted as saying.

The Plan Commission unanimously recommended in favor of the amended rules and the village board did the same two weeks later. But, the suit alleges, the board held a "closed meeting" in violation of the Open Meetings Act to discuss the Grayson situation prior to their vote.

On July 15, two days after the vote, Grayson met with Asperger and the village attorney at village hall, records state. At that meeting, Grayson was told the new ordinance did not include pawnshops as a permitted use, that his building permits would not be issued and his business license was revoked, the lawsuit alleges.

"Asperger then offered Grayson $10,000 if he would release any and all claims he had against the village, which he refused," the lawsuit alleges.

In September, the village sought to have the case dismissed, stating Grayson had failed to substantiate aspects of his allegations.

LaPidus, in a separate dismissal request, asked the judge to remove him as a defendant in the lawsuit because any comments he allegedly made were protected by the First Amendment.

Both dismissal motions were still being considered by the judge when the settlement was reached, court records show.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?