Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

Page2--Febmaryl0,2006 Vested Right-- Developer claims money spent created fight to permits Over $35,000 spent to start project Citation: 1350 Lake Shore Associates v. Casalino, Appellate Court of Illinois, 1st Dist., 3rd Div., No. 1-04-3379 (2005) ILLINOIS (t2/28/05) -- 1350 Lake Shore Associates wanted to build a new development on Lake Shore Drive. In 1997, Lake Shore met with the city alderman for the area, who requested additional parking and faqade changes. However, the alderman made no men- tion of community opposition or the fact that he was considering down-zoning property to a zoning classification that would not allow Lake Sliore's project. BelievIng it was entitled to a building permit, Lake Shore began securing contractors and architects. However, a year later, the down-zoning ordinance passed, and Lake Shore's project was no longer permitted in the area. Lake Shore sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. Lake Shore appealed, arguing it already had made substantial expenditures in relation to the project and had acquired a vested right in the earlier zoning. DECISION: Affirmed. Lake Shore did not establish it incurred obligations or expenses substantial enough to give rise to a vested right to the issuance of a zoning certificate or building permit. Shortly after the i~_itial meeting between the parties in spring 1997, Lake Shore incurred expenses totaling almost $19,000 by retaining the services of various architects, surveyors, attorneys, consultants, and ~aphic designers to work on the project. Lake Shore also contended it had invoices from two other companies in the amounts of $9,905 and $7,500. Taking these figures into account, Lake Shore would have spent approxi- mately $36,300 before it knew or should have known it could no longer rely on the issuance of a building permit. Lake Shore's witnesses estimated the value of the land to be $6 million and the cost of the project to be $70 million. Looking at the totality of the circum- stances, expenses of $36,300 were insubstantial when viewed in relation to the cost of the land and the project. Further, $36,300 was not a substantial expendi- ture for an entity like Lake Shore. see also: 1350 Lake Shore Associates v. Casalino, 816 N.E.2d 675 (2004). see also: 1350 Lake Shore Associates v. Mazur-Berg, 791 N.E.2d 60 (2003). Eminent Domain-- Town condemns church-purchased land for public park Church claims town cannot do so under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act Citation: Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brishto.n, U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, No. 04-CV-6355L (2005) 140 © 2006 Quinian Publishing Gcoup. Any reproduction is pro~ibite~. For more i~forrnatton please call (617) 542-0048.