Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2006

Home

Page 8 -- March 25, 2006 Zoning Change -- Property developer unaware of proposed zoning change Claims city acted unfairly in imputing constructive knowledge to him Citation: Ropiy v. Hernandez, Appellate Court of Illinois, 1st Dist., 2nd Div., No. 1-05-0283 (2006) 11.1 ,INOIS (02/07/06) -- Ropiy purchased a property in a zone that allowed three- unit buildings to be constructed. He stated that he would not have purchased the property if he had thought that he could not build a three-unit building there. Two months later, the city proposed changing the area's zoning to disallow three-unit buildings. The proposal was published in the Journal of Proceedings for the Chicago City Council on July 9, 2003. In July and August 2003, Ropiy spent almost $25,000 in preparation for his planned development. During this time, the necessa~ building permits were put on hold pending the final zoning change decision. Ropiy was never in- formed why ials permits were on hold, and no notice was ever mailed to him or posted on the property. Eventually, the proposed change was passed. Ropiy sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. It found Ropiy should have been aware of the possible zoning change before he expended funds in reliance on the property's current zoning. Ropiy appealed, arguing that imputing constructive knowledge on all prop- '~erty owners of any introduced ~hange in zoning would potentially allow mu- nicipalities to freeze their property fights indefinitely while a proposed change in zoning was awaiting action. DECISION: Affirmed. A municipal authofity could delay issuance of a permit while a zoning amend- ment was pending, but it had no fight to arbitrarily or unreasonably refuse or delay the issuance of the permit. Indefinitely postponing the issuance of a building permit under the pending ordinance doctrine would be viewed as an arbitrary or unreasonable delay. .After the proposed amendment was introduced to the city council, and published in the City Council's Journal of Proceedings, Ropiy was properly charged with constructive knowledge of the proposed zoning change. As a developer, Ropiy should have checked the status of a proposed zon- ing change before making substantial investments in the property. Like any legislation, zoning ordinances could be amended, and one bought land with that understanding. 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. see also: Furniture L.L.C. v. City of Chicago, 8t8 N.E. 2d 839 (2004). see also: 1350 Lake Shore Associates v. 3/lazur-Berg, 791 N.E. 2d 60 (2003). © 2008 Ouinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (817~ 542-0048. 52