|
<br />Z.R
<br />
<br />Page. 5
<br />
<br />Zoning Change - Property developer unaware of proposed zoning change '
<br />Claims city acted unfairly in imputing constructive knowledge to him
<br />Citation: Ropiy v: Hernandez, Appellate Court of Illinois, '1st Dist.~ 2nd Div.,
<br />No. 1-05-0283 (2006) .
<br />
<br />ILLINOIS (02/07/06) - Ropiy purchased a property in a zone that allowed three:~
<br />1;1}1i~,buildings to,be constructed. He state4 that he would not have purchased the
<br />property if hehad thought that he. could not build a three-unit building there. '
<br />Two months later, the city proposed changing th~ area's,zoning toclisallow
<br />three-unit,buildings. The proposal was published in the Journal of.Proceedings
<br />forthe Chicago City Council o:i1Ju~y.9, 2003. ., . , , ; ,,'~
<br />In July andA1;1gl,lst 2;003, Ropiy spent almost $25,000 in prepara~on f.of,his
<br />planned development. During this time, the necessary t>uildingpermits 'Yere
<br />put on hold pending the final zotPn.g. change Aecision. Ropiy ,w~ nev:~r in-
<br />formed Why his permits were on hold, and no no:tice 'was ever maile4,to Wm or
<br />. . . ~ . . . . . . .; .". ," .". .
<br />posted on the property. ' ' _ ' ..' ;: i .
<br />. Eventually, the proposeq ch.ange was passed. '. . ' "
<br />, ,Ro'piy ~ue'd, and the court ru.led in fa,vor, of th~ 'city. It ,'round ~a(~,op~y
<br />should hiwe been aware of thep?ssible zomng chaIlge ~efore, he ~xIJen~.ed
<br />funds i,n reliance o'n ~e property'scurren~ zoning: " ' , '
<br />Ropiy appealed, arguing that imp~ting constructive knmyledge o~ all PI.9P:-
<br />erty owners-of any introduced change in zoning would PQtentiai1y aJ10w inu~
<br />nicipalities to freeze their property ,rightsindefrilltely while a pr()p()s~d chan&e
<br />in zoning was awaiting action. "
<br />DEClSION:Aflirmed.
<br />A municipal authority could delay issuance of a permit while a zoning arb.end-
<br />ment was ,pending, but it had no right to arbitrarily or unreasonably refuse or
<br />delay the issuance of the permit. IndefInitely postponing the issuance of a
<br />building permit under the pending ordinance doctrine would be viewed as an
<br />arbitrary or unreasonable delay.
<br />After the proposed amendment was introduced to the City council, and
<br />published in the CitY Council's Journal of Proceedings, Ropiy was properly
<br />charged with constructive knowledge of the proposed zoning change. '
<br />As a developer, Ropiy should have checke~ the statUs of a proposed zon-
<br />ing change before making substantial investments"in the property. Like any
<br />legislation, zoning ordinances could be ainended, and one bought hind with
<br />that understanding. "
<br />Ropiy's expenditures, even if substantial, were not made in good ~aith reli-
<br />ance on the prior classification because all of his 'expenditures were made after
<br />he had constructive knowledge' of the proposed zoning change. ' '
<br />see also: Furniture L.L. C. v. City of Chicago, 818 N.E.2d 839 (2004).
<br />see also: 1350 Lake Shore ASsociates v. Mazur-Berg, 791 NE.2d 60 (2003).
<br />
<br />@ 2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinlan 1M is a Thomson West brand. Any reproduction is prohibited.
<br />
<br />39
<br />
|