Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

138 PageS--January25,2006 Zoning Change-- Property owner claims vested fight to prior zoning Proposed zoning change made matter of public record before owner made any expenditures on property Citation: Ropiy v. Hernandez, Appellate Court of Illinois, 1st Dist., 2ncl Div., No. 1-05-0283 (2005) 11~1 .INOIS (1~06/05) -- Ropiy bought property in Chicago, intending to tear down a single-family residence and construct a tkree-unit residential building in its place. At the time that the purchase contract was signed, the property was zoned for three-unit buildings. Soon thereafter, Alderman Ocasio proposed an ordinance to change the zoning classification 6f the property. The new classification would not allow three-unit buildings. This proposal was made a matter of public record. During this time, Ropiy spent almost $25,000 on contractors, structural plans, architectural plans, and mortgage costs. However, becanse of the pending ordinance, Ropxy s wrecking perrmts ere put on hold. The zoni_ng change became official several months later. Conse- quently, Ropiy could not complete his project. Ropiy sued to receive the perm/ts, and the court ruled in favor of the city. Ropiy appealed, arguing that his expenditures gave him a vested right in the prier zoning classification. DECISION: A filmed. Ropiy's expenditures, even if substantial, were not made in good-faith reli- ance on the prior classification because all of his expenditures were made after he had constructive knowledge of the proposed zoning change. Ocasio proposed an ordinance to change the zoning classification of the property. This proposal was published in the Journal of Proceedings for the Chicago City Council on the same day. Although Ropiy claimed that he was unaware of the proposed change; he was expected to have knowledge of any potential zoning changes affecting his property. Ropiy completed the purchase and received the deed to the property over a month later. He then expended almost $25,000 while preparing to construct the three-unit building. Lmportanfly, all of Ropiy's expenditures were made after the amendatory zoning ordinance was introduced in the city council and published in the journal. Ropiy argued that he incurred a substantial obligation prior to the introduc- tion of the proposed ordinance by signing an unconditional contract to pur- chase the property. However, he conceded that his fights did not vest until he received the deed to the property. Since the proposed ordinance was a matter of public record, the court as- sumed that Ropiy had knowledge of the proposed zoning change. Thus, he gained no vested fight in the property's prior zoning classification shnply be- cause of the expenditures he had made. © 2008 Quintan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prc~tbite~. For more information please call (61D 542-0048.