Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/11/2004

Home

Page $ -- February 10, 2004 Z.B. 122 Special Use Permit -- Developer files incomplete application Sues to have zoning ordinance found unconstitutional ILLINOIS (12/16/03) -- Shipp filed an application with the county for a spe- cial use permit to develop a manufactured home park conta/.ning nearly 700 residential sites. A manufactured home park was permitted as a special use under the zoning ordinance. Shipp's application was a general sketch of the planned park. The sketch included the numbering and placement of sites; a legal description of the land; a breakdown of the acreage indicating how much land was desig-nated to open space and recreational areas; a picture of a standard residential lot; and a gen- eral description of the location of common areas, buildings, e,,dsting ease- ments, and streets. However, the sketch plan did not include other code requirements, such as the specific dimensions of any'buildings or structures, the location of sewer or water supply fines, or a description of the internal Lighting and electrical sys- tems. Consequently, the board determined the application was insufficient and denied the. special use permit. Shipp sued, claiming the zoning ordinance was unconstitutional. The court ruled in his favor and ordered the county to allow the project. The county appealed, arguing the application was incomplete and could not be properly considered or acted upon. DECISION: Reversed. Shipp's permit application was incomplete. The county zoning code established a set of standards for each permit to meet. If the criteria were not met, the county could not ensure a pro- posed development was consistent with the special use the zoning code authorized. Because Shipp's application was incomplete, the county lacked the information to determine whether the property qualified for a special use exception. The county, had to have ali the pertinent information before it could rule on the merits of an application. To ensure public safety, utility, and proper gowth, a county had to be able to determine whether the proposed development met those requirements before making any decisions. Although Shipp was required to include spec~ic facts in his application, he only made a general promise to comply with zoning requirements in the future. This was insufficient. Cirario~: Shipp v. Coz~nry. of Kcmkakee, Appellate Court of Illinois, Srd Dist., No. 3-02-0642 (~_00~?. see also: Hawrhor~e v. Village of Olympia Fields, 790 X£.2d 832 (2003). see c~lso: Cried'co Heights v. Livi~.zg ~M)rd Outreach Ftdl Gospel Ch~trch and MiJ'~isrries [;~c., 749 ;x/~.£~t 916 (200i).