|
<br />Februal)' 1, 20071 Volume 11 No.3
<br />
<br />More wimesses testified after that sratement was made, and the chairman
<br />made other statements to the witneSses and Kimball's lawyer, including telling
<br />the lawyer that tearing the building down would tlsolve everybody's problem. '"
<br />Ulrimately, the board voted against Kimball, stating that: there was no
<br />evidence presented proving a unique circumstance existed to justify the grant
<br />of a variance, Kimball could make good use of its land without continuing
<br />with the current design, and any hardship Kimball suffered was self-created
<br />by beginning the building without first obtaining the proper permits.
<br />Kimball appealed the decision of the board to court. It claimed that the
<br />chairman. was biased and influenced the proceedings and the boud's deci-
<br />sion was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court found in favor of
<br />the city "without elaboration."
<br />Kimball appealed,
<br />Decision: Affirmed.
<br />Several factors had to exist bef:ore the board could grant a variance. A
<br />variance was cDnsidered an extraordinary measure, and it was not enough
<br />fDr a party to claim it would do no harm if granted. At rrllni.m~ all of the
<br />following had to be true: the property could not yield a reasonable rerum
<br />without ayariance; the plight of the owner was .due tD unique circumstanCes
<br />and not self-inflicted; and the variation could not alter the essential character
<br />of the locality. The appeals CDurt fouild that the record supported the con-
<br />cIU:Sionof the board that none of these factors had been proven.
<br />Although the board made limired findings of fact and its decision did
<br />nDt include any credibility determinations, the court noted that neither was
<br />n_eeded. Unless a statute required specmc factual Endings, an administrative
<br />agency was only required to provide a record and :findings to facilitate effi-
<br />cient judicial review.
<br />Furthe.z; for Kimball to succeed on the claim that the decision was against
<br />the weight of the evidence, it had to show that "all reasonable peDple would
<br />find that me. opposite condU:l?ion [was] dearly apparent." Kimball could not
<br />meet this burden. The fact that it had hegun construction before .obtaining
<br />any permits hurt its argument that any hardship was self-inflicted.
<br />With regard to the bias issue, the court st<:l-ted that: "Bias by an adminis-
<br />trative agency may be shown Dnly if a disinterested observer would conclude
<br />that the agency, 0+ its members, had adjudged the facts a.nd law Df the case
<br />before the matter was heard." While the court did find that the chairman
<br />was "cavalier" and "forthright" with his opinion during the hearing, it co~d
<br />not find that it was so much SD as to be cDnsidered biased. ImPOrtantly, Kim-
<br />ball was not prevented from presenting its caSe fully.
<br />The conn found that the cha..i.rm:an's behavior did not overcome the pre-
<br />sumption Df objectivity given to adininistraove public officials. The decision
<br />of the lDwer court was affirmed. .
<br />See also: Waste Monagement of Illinois, Inc. v. Pollution Control Ed., 175 Ill. App.
<br />3d 1023, 125 Ill. Dec. 524, 530 N.E.2d 682 (2d Dist. 1988).
<br />
<br />. ;,:,::::~'.\f-:;~~.~>~:~'::;>> "~ :~_::.)' t..~ :~ j, ".'" ."_ -i-. J~::;Y.::j "\-':i;.;:~~~.'" ":,,::;:_,~, ~,~.,-,";->:,~C~{'T0'::~;;r
<br />.;~ }.~':Edi1:"[:lrfaI: QuestionS: or ~omments:.we5t".criz-inran~~hom,50~c~#-:~!:{~;-'
<br />, ;~":_ -.-.~.... ..' - .' " . -. .,., ,.-,.~:"~,..,,., ,,~_'~,',,',f,:,,~,',',,"'.'.,",,:
<br />..":::....:-',_.~.:, . ';. "': '" . ._ . .. ~ . "n .
<br />
<br />'8
<br />
<br />98
<br />
<br />t':
<br />,
<br />
<br />c,
<br />-',.-.'
<br />
|