01/06/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 6 -- December I 0, 2004 Z..B. lng manufacturers and businesses from incompatible residential encroachment. Before the zoning change went into effect, Furniture spent appro,'dmately $900,000 in acquiring the property and retaining an architectural firm. Furniture sued, arguing it had a vested right in building the apartments. The court ruled in its favor. The city appealed, arguing it never gave Furniture any assurances regard- ing a building permit. DECISION: Affirmed. Fm'niture had a vested right to build a residential structure on the site because it made substantial expenditures in good faith reliance that the city would issue a oufldm~ permit. A property owner did not have to show it received some kind of assurance from the municipality that it would be issued a building permit. Instead, Furni- ture only needed to show it made substantial expenditures in good faith reli- ance on the probability the city would issue a building permit. Because the zoning regulation at the time Furniture purchased the property allowed for a residential structure, Furniture never wavered from its plans,, and began immediate work on the project by hiring soil engineers, architects, and marketing consultants. By the time Furniture was put on notice of a possible zoning change, it had expended approximately $900,000. The court correctly took into account the money Furniture spent to acquire the land and the costs of architectural plans. Under the relevant case law, the amount of money Furniture spent was clearly enough to acquire a vested right in its planned development. see also: Wakelw~d v. City of Urbana, 776 N.E. 2d 1194 (2002). Ordinance -- Special permit denied based on parMng area considerations With parf~'ng area, developer's planned use would exceed 40 percent of coverage allowed under ordi~zance Citation: RVS h~dustries [nc: v. The k?lIage of Shiloh, Appellate Court of illinois, 5ch District, No. ~-93-0o60 (2004) iLLINOiS (10/07/04') -- RVS Industries Inc. applied for a special use permit to convert a six-unit townhouse building into a 10-unk townhouse. RVS's prop- erty was zoned multifamily residential. The Village of Shiloh denied the application because RVS's proposed and existing lot coverage exceeded 40 percent of the lot, which was prohibited by the village ,ordinance. [n making its decision, the village inciuded the property's parking lot in its calculations. RVS sued, arguing the panking lot should not have been included. The CottrI ruled ill i'avor of the vlllaae. RS/'5 appealed, chinning the orc!inance did not specifically state the parking ':,5,[ had :,,~, be mciuded in !~>t ?overaae calculations. 98