HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnlawful Residential Uses Task Force Report Committee of the Whole Meeting
June 25, 1997
Page 3
Councilman Gavin made a motion, seconded by Councilman Gilliam,
to approve the request for temporary access to Randall Road and
to direct staff to notify the Kane County Highway Department.
Yeas : Councilmembers Gavin, Gilliam, McKevitt, Schock, Walters,
Yearman and Mayor Kelly. Nays : None .
Councilman Schock made a motion, seconded by Councilman Gilliam,
to approve up to $26 , 000 to match funds raised through other
sources for Phase II stabilization. Yeas : Councilmembers Gavin,
Gilliam, McKevitt, Schock, Walters , Yearman and Mayor Kelly.
Nays : None .
Mayor Kelly recessed the meeting at 8 : 00 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 9 : 12 p.m.
Engineering Services Agreement for Public Works Facility Needs
Assessment
Councilman Schock made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Yearman, to approve the proposed agreement with Rust E & I in the
not-to-exceed amount of $63, 485 for a needs assessment for Public
Works facilities . Yeas : Councilmembers Gavin, Gilliam,
McKevitt, Schock, Walters and Yearman. Nays : Mayor Kelly.
meport on Unlawful Residential Uses .
Councilman Gilliam reported on the task force ' s results regarding
unlawful residential uses . Code Administration Director Pearson
outlined the major points of the report prepared by the task
force.
Councilman Gilliam made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Yearman, to accept the report of the Unlawful Residential Uses
Task Force and refer it to the Planning Commission to make a
recommendation to the City Council . Yeas : Councilmembers Gavin,
Gilliam, McKevitt, Schock, Walters, Yearman and Mayor Kelly.
Nays : None.
Raymond Street On-street Parking Restrictions
Councilman Walters made a motion, seconded by Councilman Schock,
to make the experimental parking ban on Raymond Street between
National Street and the Route 20 By-Pass permanent by passing an
ordinance prohibiting parking as aforesaid. Yeas :
Councilmembers Gavin, Gilliam, McKevitt, Schock, Walters , Yearman
and Mayor Kelly. Nays : None.
Proposed U.,;13- lawful Residential Uses Enforcement and
Recognition Criteria
1 The proposed guidelines are designed to identify and address properties with residential dwelling
2 units exceeding the number allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed program provides:
3 1. Relaxed criteria for properties to obtain lawful nonconforming status, recognizing that
4 some unlawful uses are long-standing. The proposed criteria provides two tiers. One
5 level is for uses established prior to 1960 and a second level for uses created between
6 1960 and 1992.
7 2. Properties either established after 1992 (or unable to meet the relaxed proof standards) or
8 unable to provide adequate off-street parking will continue to be deemed unlawful. These
9 properties will come into compliance with the adopted Zoning Ordinance or secure
10 approval of their use through the variation process if that will provide the necessary relief.
11 3. Additional funding for the voluntary multi-family deconversion program is provided.
12 Reimbursement assistance is available for owners of lawful nonconforming uses who bring
13 their property's use back to as originally constructed.
14
15 Window of Opportunity
16
7 To be eligible for lawful nonconforming status using the special provisions here, uses must be
8 presented to the City before a six-month sunset provision expires. Properties must apply for
19 recognition within six months after the ordinance providing this expanded lawful status is formally
20 adopted by the City Council. Any properties found after that date will be required to
21 expeditiously meet the current zoning requirements without assistance or seek variation if
22 available.
23
24 What properties are eligible?
25
26 To be eligible for lawful nonconforming status, properties must demonstrate in which of two
27 timeframes(pre-1960 or 1961-1992)they were established. Once the year of conversion is
28 established, a requirement for providing adequate off-street parking may be included.
29 Zoning District
30 Properties being considered for this expanded lawful nonconforming status must be in a
31 residential zoning district.
32 Proving Year Use Established
33 Documentation is necessary to show when the use was established and to demonstrate the current
34 use has continued uninterrupted as demonstrated by multiple proofs described herein.
35 Eligible Proofs
36 Primary Government Records
37 1. Valid building permit or occupancy permit substantiating the lawful establishment of a
38 nonconforming use of land.
rki9 2. The nonconforming use of land was documented before January 1, 1992 in the real
40 property tax assessment records maintained by either the Kane County Supervisor of
41 Assessments or the Cook County Assessor.
Page 2 Proposed Expanded Residential Deconversion Program for Unlawful Uses
June 18, 1997 DRAFT
42 3. Land Use Status report prepared by the City of Elgin.
43
44 Supplemental Proofs
45 1. City building permit referencing the use but not specifically creating the use(e.g. roof
46 permit).
47 2. The directory published by the Multiple Listing Service of Northern Illinois (MLS)
48 3. Either utility company records from any utility company servicing the nonconforming use
49 of land or existence of utilitiy meters serving separate units, not a meter for common areas
50 (the City will attempt to confirm with the utility that records are unavailable or are not
51 contradictory).
52 4. One or both of the two publications listing the names and addresses of persons residing
53 within the city, said publications being commonly referred to as the"Polk Directory" and
54 the Haynes Directory."
55 5. Verification from the 1959 Sanborn Fire Rating Map.
56 6. A city of Elgin 1939 Residential Survey Card.
57 7. A classified advertisement appearing in a regularly published newspaper.
58 8. Verification from land use survey maps completed by the City either in 1986 and 1972,
59 counting as one source.
0 9. Mortgage documents or qualified appraisal records from a financial institution coinciding
1 with the same mortgage or refinancing date.
62 10. Signed and dated Federal income tax records (schedule E).
63
64 Conversions Prior to 1960
65 Require either one primary government record or two supplemental proofs (do not require
66 meeting any parking requirement).
67 Conversions Between 1960 and 1992
68 It will be necessary to show the property was converted prior to January 1, 1992 (year of
69 Comprehensive Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, stepped up code enforcement) as
70 evidenced by any one primary government record or three supplemental proofs.
71 Parking
72 Conversions shown to be established between 1960 and 1992 must currently have or legally
73 create parking per standards set forth already in the Elgin Municipal Code adequate off-street
74 parking in order to be deemed lawful nonconforming. There must be at least 2 parking stalls per
75 unit if there is space to accommodate that number. In instances where the two stalls per unit
76 requirement cannot be met, because of physical constraints of the site, the owner must provide a
77 minimum of 1.5 stalls per unit in order to be eligible for lawful nonconforming status.
78
79 Effect of Criteria
80
81 Based upon available information, approximately 50%to 70% of the properties could meet the
r"`2 relaxed requirements for establishing a nonconforming use and could, if applicable, provide the
03 required adequate off-street parking.
Page 3 Proposed Expanded Residential Deconversion Program for Unlawful Uses
June 18, 1997 DRAFT
84 For the properties still unlawful nonconforming, there are still two choices for property owners.
85 The properties can either come into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance(without financial
86 -assistance as they cannot meet the criteria) or apply for a variation if applicable. The variation
87 opportunity requires a demonstration at public hearing of unique circumstance and lack of
88 adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
89
90 All properties achieving lawful nonconforming status will be required to meet all adopted city
91 codes including receipt of a residential rental license. Moreover, all units will be required to
92 meet applicable habitability requirements as well as meeting basic minimum maintenance
93 standards.
94
95 How to register for the program
96
97 Application for recognition must be made within six months of adoption of this program. The
98 application ensures that the properties will not be transferred to an unwary purchaser.
99
100 Assistance for property owners to convert
101
2 Properties meeting the criteria and achieving lawful nonconforming status would be eligible to
register for the City's multi-family conversion grant administered by Neighborhood Housing
104 Services of Elgin. Assistance for eligible properties would be available for reimbursement of
105 conversion costs up to $12,000 per unit.
106
107 The timing of conversion within the four years of the program would be determined by
108 Neighborhood Housing Services working with property owners. The order of property
109 conversion would be determined based upon the benefit gained by conversion. Priority would be
110 given to properties failing to meet property maintenance requirements and otherwise troubled
111 properties.
112
113 Funding for program
114
115 The following are program funding possibilities above those levels established in the Five-Year
116 Financial Plan. The appropriation must be considered by the City Council:
117
118 1997 $350,000
119 1998 350,000
120 1999 275,000
121 2000 275-000
122 Total $1,250,000
23
4 Based upon the proposed funding of$12,000 maximum per unit, the funds available above could
125 assist with the conversion of a minimum 100 units. An additional amount for administration of
Page 4 Proposed Expanded Residential Deconversion Program for Unlawful Uses
June 18, 1997 DRAFT
126 the program must be added.
127 •
128 Existing Multi-Family Conversion Program
129 In the adopted Five-Year Financial Plan, the City has committed to assisting property owners
130 desiring to deconvert some of the more than 3,000 lawful nonconforming residential uses.
131 Funding for the existing program is as follows:
132
133 1997 $200,000
134 1998 350,000
135 1999 400,000
136 2000 400.000
137 Total $1,350,000
138
139 For lawful nonconforming properties, the existing program provides up to $12,000 in conversion
140 assistance. Thus, the funding above is sufficient for a minimum of 112 dwelling units.
• "JUN-19-1997 11:07 FROM TO 9316790 P.002/002
ELGIN AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®
`` p 1735 Grandstand Place
Elgin,Illinois 60123
Telephone: 847/695-7607
REALTOR® FAX: 8471742-3222
June 19, 1997
City Council
City of Fflgin
150 Dexter Court -
Elgin, IL 60120
Dear Council Members:
We would like to express our appreciation to the Elgin City Council for forming a task force to
address the multi-family de-conversion issue.
Our industry is concerned with protecting the private property rights of each individual in our
community. We feel it was an important step to share our views with the various interest
groups within the city. We are SUPPORTING the attached document as it has been
thoroughly reviewed, revised and discussed at length by all parties, and it represents a
r--compromise on this complex issue.
Sincerely,
(T3DAn U.- 117.-U 66,111ALl-
Bonnie B. Hill Charlene Goldman
Co-Chairman Co-Chairman
Elgin Area Association of REALTORS* Elgin Area Association of REALTORS*
Multi-family De-Conversion Task Force Multi-family De-Conversion Task Force
Board of Directors
Barbara Bronars, Chairman, Governmental Affairs Committee
REALTOR"— is a registered mark which identifies a professional in real estate who subscribes to a strict Code of Ethics as a member of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Of REALTORS'''
To: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE ITY OF ELGIN
From: Edna Krueger and nick Swanson
Date: June 19, 1997 *9\14421 'zC 1
As representatives of the Elgin Property Owners Association serving on the
Deconversion Task Force, we are addressing some of our concerns pertaining to
Proposed Unlawful Residential Uses and Recognition Criteria.
1. Proving Year Use Established (lines 32-34)
Except where ownership has remained constant from the date of conversion,
it would be virtually impossible to demonstrate that the current use has
continued uninterrupted.
2. Conversions Between 1960 and 1992 Parking (lines it -71 )
While we will accept "2 parking stalls per unit if there is space to
accommodate that number" it is only if a reasonable allowance is made
to provide green space, no requirement for installation of catch basins
or storm sewer drains, and that a flooding problem will not be created
for adjacent property.
Where the above requirement cannot be met, 1.5 spaces is totally unacceptable.
At best, the existing parking should be grandfathered in and allowed.
3. Effect of Criteria (lines 90 and91 ) a modification to be added after "codes"
in line 9] at the time of the deconversion.
. .
rft-
6-17-97
Dear Members of the City Council:
The proposal before you today is unlike most proposals you
consider. It is unusual because it is not the product of members of
city staff but of a fractured task force of citizens who could not
come to a consensus. With that very important thought in mind, we
ask you to consider it only as a starting point for discussion not
as a document anywhere near completion.The proposal on Unlawful
Residential Uses before you today does not adequately address the
problem of which properties should be made lawful because it
ignores the basics of good zoning and has relaxed the standards of
proof so much that it jeopardizes the integrity of our zoning law.
While there is some good content as a result of many hours of
discussion, there is one glaring omission to the criteria for a
property to obtain lawful nonconforming status. The absence of any
LOT SIZE requirements is unconscionable. Every zoning amendment of
our city since 1928 has required a certain lot size per dwelling
unit for residential uses. Lot size is the most basic component of
zoning and should not be ignored. The importance of lot size was
few, first recognized as a safety measure to prevent the spread of fire
` from one home to the next. The lot sizes in Elgin have consistently
been raised by many city councils over the past 70 years and with
each zoning law revision. Cities have come to realize that lot size
affords needed recreational spaces and keeps neighbors on good
terms with one another. In the most permissive residential use
district of the current zoning law, the Multiple Family Residence
District, properties are required to provide 5000 square feet of
lot area per dwelling unit. The lot square footage in previous
zoning laws centered around 3000 or 3300 square feet per dwelling
unit.
The task force spent a great amount of time discussing lot size
requirements for properties that would be given lawful status or be
"grandfathered". The approved minutes of October 3. , November 5,
and both revisions of the Zoning Ordinance prepared by Corporate
Counsel all make references to a minimum zoning lot area. There was
no satisfactory resolution to what that lot size should be but
several members of the task force favored 3300 Square feet per
dwelling unit because of its long standing use in previous zoning
law. The neighborhoods do not agree with this minimal standard but
preferred that the lot. size at date of conversion be used. This
standard is supported by the logic of imposing the law as it
existed in the year of conversion in order to be fair and
consistent with all of the lawfully established nonconforming uses.
The only argument. against a minimum lot size stemmed from the
assumption that parking requirements would automatically disqualify
any lots which are small since the parking spaces must be provided
in certain areas of the lot. This is a flawed assumption because
there are no parking requirements before 1960 so 59 of the original
216 would have no "check" on their lot size. Parking requirements
in the draft before you have also been watered down from the
required two spaces per unit to one and one half if the lot size or
configuration cannot meet the required two spaces. This parking
"check" on the lot size is simply not valid. Even if one assumes it
is valid the addition of a lot size requirement should have no
effect, as all the smaller lots will already be eliminated.
It is imperative that you take up the discussion of a lot size
requirement. Lot size is the most obvious characteristic about a
property. It would be difficult to believe that a property that did
not meet the lot size requirement at the time of conversion would
have ever been able to obtain the permit necessary to convert the
property to multi-family use. The neighborhoods reason that some
older properties may have misplaced or lost records which would
substantiate their legal use but the neighborhoods do not believe
that the city would have issued permits to properties with
substandard lot sizes.
Small lot size with an overly dense use merely add stress to
already stressed neighborhoods. In January of 1996, the Planning
Dept issued a report, Neighborhood Stress Factors Report" which
stated that the number one and number two factors which have the
rft. highest positive correlation with gang related criminal activity
are severely overcrowded dwelling units and dwelling units which
are conversions. We urge you to think about the relationship
between density and criminal activity in our older neighborhoods.
We ask you to look at the history of our increasing zoning lot size
and make the determination that a lot size requirement is
important. It should be the first criteria examined not the one
ignored.
In turning to other points of disagreement with the current
proposal, We draw your attention to the number of proofs being
required. The proofs which were accepted by the Dept. of Code
Administration have been broadened in the hope that older
properties may be able to more readily find proofs where some
records may have been lost due to the passage of time or in the
transfer of data to modern computer systems. It is important to
note that 3000 other properties have met the level of FOUR proofs
that were more narrow in scope than those being allowed here. The
3000 which have been declared lawful did not have the option of
only meeting one primary proof. Therefore, the level of proof has
been lowered substantially for this small minority of property
owners.The neighborhoods cannot agree that the number of proofs
should be lowered from four to two or three.
Looking at the types of proofs being allowed, it is essential that
Appik more than two or three of the supplemental proofs be required
because none of them is without flaws. Having multiple proofs
serves as a "check" on proofs which may be recorded in error, or
obtained from a source which had no primary knowledge of the number
of existing units, or forged. For example, verification from a land
use survey map may be flawed because the maps were done by summer
interns who never entered a property to verify the number of units.
A classified advertisement could be forged by anyone with access to
professional looking printing. The city directories could very well
contain the names of two different families residing at the same
address if they were in-laws or other relatives who live together,
it does not necessarily follow that they lived in two separate
dwelling units. The Multiple Listing Service and a classified
advertisement of a house for sale could both come from the same
source and not provide independent proof of existence. The number
of proofs should be maintained at FOUR. It is reasonable as a check
on less than perfect proofs and it is a fair standard that all
other property owners were held to.
Your decison on granting lawful use status will become part of our
zoning law. One of the principles of good law making is that we
expect it to be fair. It is fair not just to the property owner of
a questionable multi-family building but to the neighbors who live
near it and the property owners who have complied with the law
under the same circumstances. An overwhelming majority of property
owners have already met the standards of the law as it exists, is
it necessary to sacrifice some of the integrity of our zoning law
for a minority? Is it fair to allow lower standards to be used in
some blocks but not others? We believe the best interests of the
em". neighborhoods and other multi-family property owners is best served
by preserving the integrity of the zoning law. We rely on you to
preserve our zoning through fair implementation of the law.
Sincerely,
414":-
ld "eat
J-ja'l ifer /an Duyn Miriam Scott
N- ghbor ood Representaitve Neighborhood Representative
Task Force on Unlawful Residential Uses
cc: Erwin Jentsch
Clay Pearson
Robert Malm
Roger Dahlstrom
M .
City of Elgin �4/0
Unlawful Residential Uses Task Force O.'ti3Minutes of Meeting ?Pr°
' ' �1�
October 3, 1996
The October 3, 1996 meeting was called to order at 1 :50 p.m.
Present: Bob Gilliam, Marie Yearman, Jennifer Van Duyn,
Charlene Goldman, Betty Skyles, Miriam Scott, Edna Krueger,
Dick Swanson, Stuart Wasilowski, Clay Pearson, Rick Kozal
(for Ery Jentsch)
Absent: Bonnie Hill
Edna Krueger moved and Stuart Wasilowski seconded to approve
minutes for the September 5, 1996 meeting.
Discussion moved to the memorandum dated September 30, 1996
by Erwin Jentsch, Corporation Counsel, outlining the proposed
text amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding nonconform-
ing residential uses . Attorney Kozal reviewed major points
of the proposed ordinance:
*1 . The nonconforming residential use must have been
established before January 1, 1992 ( lines 26-28 )
*2 . The tax assessor ' s records must reflect that the
nonconforming use was established before 1992
(lines 29-31 ) .
*3 . The minimum required zoning lot area provisions of
the 1992 zoning ordinance are satisfied (lines
32-34) .
*4 . The nonconforming use complies with the off-street
parking provisions of the 1992 zoning ordinance
( lines 35-36 ) .
*5 . The nonconforming use must be in compliance with
all applicable property maintenance, building,
fire, electrical, and heating codes, the historic
preservation ordinance, and be licensed in accor-
dance with the rental licensing ordinance ( lines
37-41 ) .
If each of the five criteria is satisfied, the nonconforming
residential use would be recognized as having lawful noncon-
forming status . Properties unable to satisfy the criteria
still have the option of filing a "traditional" appeal before
the Zoning and Subdivision Hearing Board, and ultimately, the
courts .
Unlawful Residential Uses Minutes
October 3, 1996
Page 2
Mr. Swanson raised the question of the proposed unified
benchmark test - existence of tax assessor records prior to
January 1, 1992, stating his concerns that many properties
will not be able to satisfy this criteria.
Mr. Wasilowski responded that he appreciates that the tax
assessor records be used since these documents were refer-
enced by the City Council in their discussion establishing
the Task Force.
Mrs . Krueger expressed concern that the parking standard
being used will hold these properties to a higher standard
than would otherwise be required for lawful nonconforming
uses .
Mr. Swanson said that the tax assessor records shouldn't be
the sole proof. He said he guarantees that the tax assessor
records are often wrong.
Mr. Pearson suggested a compromise to the requirement that
the tax assessor ' s records document the nonconforming use was
established before 1992 . If a property owner could not
produce tax assessor records documenting the establishment of
the nonconforming use before 1992 , documentation from any of
the following four sources would be acceptable:
City Directories
Utility Records
Sanborn Maps
1939 Residential Survey Cards
MLS Listing
Classified Advertising
City permit referencing the use
Also accepted as a matter of law is a building permit creat-
ing the use.
There was some discussion about situations where more than
one homestead exemption exists . Consensus was that nobody
should be receiving this exemption that doesn 't deserve it.
Item one of the memorandum was discussed (January 1, 1992
cut-off date) . Stuart said he could go with this as long as
other criteria would be met. Miriam concurred.
Discussion centered on closing of the window of opportunity.
Everybody agreed that an aggressive publicity campaign be
launched to inform people of the need to obtain lawful noncon-
forming status for their properties (Spirit, newspaper dis-
play advertising, back of water bills) . Mrs . Krueger commend-
ed the City for informing landlords when tenants become
Unlawful Residential Uses Minutes
October 3, 1996
Page 3
delinquent on water bills . After close of the publicity
campaign, a 60 day time period for seeking lawful nonconform-
ing status was suggested.
Item three ( lot area) was addressed. Ms . Scott said this
item was extremely important.
A compromise was suggested using the lot area requirements
for applicable when any particular house was built. There
was some agreement on this suggestion and it was agreed to
discuss the matter further at the next meeting.
Stuart asked that letters from SEEN, Parkwood, and GPA neigh-
borhood groups be noted for the record. All the groups were
opposed to and proposal that would allow unlawful conversions
to continue without recognition of the factors being dis-
cussed.
Respectfully Submitted,
C4c
Clay J. Pearson, Secretary
. �1
M - 1
City of Elgin
Unlawful Residential Uses Task Force
Minutes of Meeting
September 5, 1996
The September 5, 1996 meeting was called to order at 1 : 30 p.m.
Present: Bob Gilliam, Marie Yearman, Stuart Wasilowski,
Jennifer VanDuyn, Edna Krueger, Dick Swanson, Bonnie Hill,
Charlene Goldman, Clay Pearson, Ery Jentsch
Absent: Betty Skyles, Miriam Scott
The minutes of the August 1, 1996 meeting were read. Ms .
Krueger moved, and Ms . Yearman seconded, to approve the
minutes . The motion was approved.
Ms . Yearman suggested that, after we have had two meetings,
people should put on the table their ideas, then we could
look for a compromise.
Mrs . Goldman presented a statement from the Elgin Area Associ-
ation of Realtors that outlined their position for discus-
sion.- The proposal calls for allowing all verifiable conver-
sions prior to 1992 to continue as lawful nonconforming uses .
Questions were asked regarding specific actions by the City
and staff that may have encouraged these conversions as the
Realtors presented. The Realtor representatives responded
that there are many stories of these types of instances in —
the past.
A discussion on the need to provide affordable housing en-
sued. Mrs . VanDuyn cited the Far West Area Plan that said
that actually the preponderance of affordable housing in
Elgin could place the City at a competitive disadvantage.
Mr. Swanson said things are in place (rental licensing, etc. )
to enforce standards . The move nationally is towards scat-
tered-site housing. We should enhance what we already have.
Extensive conversations took place on the pros and cons of
the proposal put forward by the Realtors .
Unlawful Residential Uses Minutes
September 5, 1996
Page 2
Proposal : Everything Verifiable Before 1992 Stays
Pros Cons
*Legally defensible?? *Knowing conversions stay??
*More money for multi- *No public input on
family conversion program specific properties
*Must meet habitability *Most heavily impacted
requirements (exiting, are older neighborhoods
light, ventilation, and
ceiling height)
*Wouldn't force owners who *Would go on forever
have a two-unit to sell
*Provides a solid "line *Parking not addressed
in the sand" (year)
*If made lawful non-
conforming, would require
inspection and be brought
- up to code
The sticking points of the discussion were:
*Most heavily impacted areolder neighborhoods
*Year
*Should people who converted knowing the use was
illegal be allowed to keep the conversion?
*Would go on forever
*Availability of multi-family conversion
*Parking not addressed
A request was made of Mr. Jentsch for a legally defensible
process and requirements . Mr. Jentsch will take the lead in
developing a skeletal outline of a procedure.
The next meeting will address the sticking points .
The next meeting of the Task Force will be held at 1 : 30 p.m.
on Thursday, October 3 , 1996 in the City Manager ' s Conference
Room. A subsequent meeting will be held on Thursday, October
17, 1996 .
Respectfull submitted,
7 ,=1_
Clay A . Pearson, Secretary
N �
City of Elgin
Unlawful Residential Uses Task Force
Minutes of Meeting
August 1, 1996
The August 1, 1996 meeting was called to order at 1 : 30 p.m.
Present: Bob Gilliam, Marie Yearman, Stuart Wasilowski,
Miriam Scott, Jennifer VanDuyn, Edna Krueger, Dick Swanson,
Bonnie Hill, Charlene Goldman, Clay Pearson
Absent: Betty Skyles
Mrs . Krueger approved, Mr. Swanson seconded to approve min-
utes of July 18, 1996 . Motion approved.
Mrs . VanDuyn noted that the 22 census areas show inner ring
areas are the ones that have above average factors of neigh-
borhood stress.
A number of questions were posed regarding the Neighborhood
Stress Factors Report. Concern was expressed regarding the
public perception of these quantitative census values. It
was said that this report is provided as background informa-
eft tion. Mr. Swanson noted that there are a lot of factors that
go into the report.
Attention turned to the draft Policy Recommendation and
report from the Unlawful Residential Uses Task Force, dated
July 29, 1996 .
Mrs . Hill was concerned with item three of the purpose sec-
tion. Mrs . Goldman proposed edits to item three which were
accepted by the Task Force.
The background as edited was found to be acceptable.
The next section was the Recommendation. Mr. Pearson went
through the various draft types presented and the criteria
presented.
A great deal of discussion ensued about the factors, Mr.
Swanson related that the owner-occupied properties should not
be treated differently than those totally investment.
The list of properties were discussed and concern from some
that all the properties were truly unlawful.
Ms . Scott asked why MFC applied to Type II and not Type III,
Mr. Pearson responded that there was probably not a lot of
reason to divide these similar types.
Unlawful Residential Uses Minutes
August 1, 1996
Page 2
Ms . Scott asked why MFC applied to Type II and not Type III,
Mr. Pearson responded that there was probably not a lot of
reason to divide these similar types .
Application of the MFC to the unlawful uses was discussed
with differing opinions . Potentially MFC should be based on
need.
Concern about timeframes was discussed (maximum five years) .
Ms . Scott raised the issue of 37 properties that have been in
areas zoned continuously single-family; she feels these
properties should be priority to return single-family.
Mrs . VanDuyn noted that several of the criteria used at the
outset are not being considered anymore (parking, lot area) .
Mrs . VanDuyn noted that several properties have township
records matching City LUSR. Mr. Swanson said that taxes are
not based on the number of units, but based on the improve-
ments value.
Mr. Wasilowski asked if various scenarios for the types
should be developed.
81 times the City use matched the township use, according to
Ms . Scott.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3 : 30 . The next meet-
ing is scheduled for Thursday, August 29, 1996 at 1 : 30 p.m.
in the City Manager ' s Conference Room.
Respectfully Submitted,
Clay . Pearson
cl1/4), 4
rm.
Unlawful Residential Uses Task Force
City of Elgin
Minutes of Meeting
Thursday, July 21, 1996
Members Present: Bob Gilliam, Marie Yearman, Stuart
Wasilowski, Miriam Scott, Betty Skyles, Jennifer VanDuyn,
Edna Krueger, Dick Swanson, Bonnie Hill, Charlene Goldman,
Clay Pearson
By consensus, Bob Gilliam was appointed Chairman of the Task
Force and Clay Pearson was appointed Secretary. All twelve
members appointed were present. Introductions were made and
the groups that each individual represents indicated.
Attorney Jentsch outlined the City' s current ordinance fol-
lows the pattern of most municipalities , locally and national-
ly. Any property use has to be lawfully established (accord-
ing to zoning) and has to be continuously used in order for
the use to remain lawful when a change in law occurs .
rft. Mr. Swanson asked how many more illegal uses there are. Mr.
Pearson responded that after 18 months of implementing the
rental licensing program and exhaustive comparison of avail-
able records including water accounts and township assessor
records, the inventory of rental units is believed to be
sound.
Mrs . Yearman asked questions about the permit issues, exteri-
or rating, and township uses .
Mrs . Krueger asked about 903 Bellevue, a rooming house that
does not appear on the list.
Mr. Wasilowski noted the enabling resolution for the Task
Force directed that a general policy be developed and recom-
mended for City Council consideration.
Mr. Jentsch also reminded the group that a general ordinance
is what must be developed and recommended to the City Council
and that a case-by-case determination was not the purpose of
the task force.
Mr. Swanson explained that a number of the properties have
been long-standing and some people bought the properties in
good faith. He also recently called the Housing Authority
Unlawful Residential Uses Task Force
Thursday, July 21, 1996
Page 2
rik and found there are many people waiting for Section 8 hous-
ing. He feels there is a shortage of affordable housing in
Elgin. Mr. Pearson noted that the number of rental proper-
ties in the city is relatively high and that the Section 8
shortfall may be more of an issue of involving more property
owner in the program.
Mrs . Yearman noted that the majority of properties have only
one additional unit.
Mrs . VanDuyn said every one of these properties is owned by
an investor who took a risk.
Mrs . Krueger asked if case law exists whereby owners could
sue after the owner was required to convert . Mr. Jentsch
answered that the City was immune from such actions .
Mrs . VanDuyn asked if there was case law for a neighborhood
suing a City to force enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Jentsch noted that the neighboring property owners could
sue to enforce the Zoning Ordinance and if successful, the
plaintiff could win including all attorney' s fees from viola-
tors .
e'' The number of police calls and housing court complaints on
various properties were discussed.
Mr. Gilliam asked if an outline could be developed by staff
and presented at the next meeting as a way to start the
discussion including:
Continuity of ownership
Meet parking requirements
When converted
If current owner converted illegally
Location relative to the neighborhood stress factors
If located in neighborhood with higher than average
stress
Density
Exterior rating
owner-occupied
Ms . Skyles presented the perspective of people living next to
converted properties, particularly problem properties . The
research and legal work for property owners can also be
burdensome. One idea is to let the properties sell one-time
as is but no more after that .
Mr. Wasilowski and Mr. Gilliam asked that the neighborhood
low stress factors report be distributed.
Unlawful Residential Uses Task Force
Thursday, July 21, 1996
Page 3
Mr. Pearson was asked to take the lead in developing an
outline report for the committee to work from at their next
meeting.
The next Task Force meeting will be held at 1:30 p.m. on
Thursday August 1, 1996 in the City Manager' s Conference Room.
Respectfully Submitted,
Clay J. Pearson, Secretary
r
r
' - 7
•
'4,-.. ,7..
:61 Memorandum
fin, z,
9� .,
g4'4
July 28, 1996
TO: Unlawful Residential Uses Task Force
i
FROM: Clay J. Pearson, Director, Code Administration
'i
and Neighborhood Affairs
11
SUBJECT: Background material for second meeting
Please find attached the background material requested at our
initial meeting. We have prepared a draft policy recommenda-
tion to be used as a basis for discussion. Also enclosed is
a memorandum from Corporation Counsel Jentsch providing three
court opinions relevant to our work.
You should have received draft minutes from our first meet-
ing. Please be reminded that the Task Force meets again
Thursday, August 1 1996 at 1 : 30 p.m. in the City Manager' s
Conference Room. If you are unable to attend please let me
know.
c : Richard B. Helwig, City Manager
Loni Mecum, City Clerk
A
L
July 29 , 1996
DRAFT
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
POLICY RECOMMENDATION AND REPORT FROM THE UNLAWFUL
RESIDENTIAL USES TASK FORCE
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report and recommendation is to provide a
means of relief in limited circumstances for property owners
with residential uses not lawfully established in accordance
with the zoning ordinance. The recommendation is forwarded to
the Elgin City Council with the purpose of furthering three
objectives :
1 . Improve the quality of life in Elgin' s
• neighborhoods . Neighborhoods are enhanced with
housing density appropriate to the intended use of
residential properties and the design of the
surrounding neighborhood.
2 . Protect the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance. Any
solutions to long-standing unlawful residential uses
cannot compromise the integrity of the adopted
zoning ordinance in a court of law. An objective
criteria for addressing unlawful residential uses
will allow continued application of the zoning
regulations throughout the city.
3 . Recognize the interests of property owners who may
have purchased a property in good faith, believing
that the property contained additional lawful
dwelling units . Moreover, in decades past there was
insufficient attention to the zoning requirements
and legal use of properties on the part of real
estate and legal professionals representing property
owners ' interests and the City did not always
perfectly enforce permit requirements . All parties
are now coming together to resolve these issues for
Elgin' s long-term benefit.
Unlawful Residential Uses Task Force
DRAFT Report * Page 2
BACKGROUND
Zoning Law
Zoning ordinances typically divide cities into geographic
areas called zoning districts, with the zoning districts
listing the permitted uses of both buildings and land located
within those districts . When zoning ordinances are amended to
create new zoning districts, or change the permitted or
conditional uses in existing districts, the new or redefined
zoning districts often encompass areas where the uses have
been previously established. A use of a building or land that
does not comply with present zoning provisions, but which was
lawfully established prior to the enactment of the new zoning
provision, is referred to as a preexisting or lawful
nonconforming use (commonly referred to as being
"grandfathered" ) . Lawful nonconforming uses are allowed to
continue so long as the use is not expanded, destroyed or
abandoned.
By contrast, an unlawful nonconforming use was either not
lawfully established before the zoning ordinance making it
nonconforming took effect, or was established despite never
being permitted under a zoning ordinance. A city can initiate
legal action to compel the owner of an unlawful nonconforming
use to bring the property into lawful conforming status no
matter how long ago the unlawful use was established; failing
to prosecute the property owner for the violation -- even if
the unlawful nonconforming use existed for decades -- is not a
valid defense. The property owner has the burden of proving
the use was lawfully established in any proceeding in any
court proceeding. However, the City of Elgin has assisted,
and continues to assist, property owners with compiling
information that will assist them in meeting their burden of
proof .
RECOMMENDATION
Criteria to be Applied for Property Owner Options
Recognizing that the properties identified as having unlawful
units is a product created over 50 years, the Task Force
members have attempted to address all three of the objectives
summarized at the outset of this report. The aim is to once
and for all provide a framework for providing fair resolution
to the issues .
Properties with unlawful residential uses have been divided
into four types based upon factors affecting the neighborhood
and factors affecting the property owner. Properties would
have to meet all of the factors in order to be categorized
in the type. Criteria range from Type I situations considered
to have little negative neighborhood impact to Type IV
properties not meeting the requirements for receiving any
relief from the zoning ordinance.
y Unlawful Residential Uses Task Force
DRAFT Report * Page 3
The recommendation of the task force provides criteria
direction as follows :
# of Neg.
Owner- unlaw. Ext. Year Neigh.
Type occupied units ratingEst* Impact# Parking
I Either 1 1 pre-1950 No
II Yes 1 1-2 Any No
III Either Any 1-2 Any No
IV Either Any Any Any Any
* = Any evidence allowed showing continuous use of the
additional unlawful use will be allowed for consideration.
# = Is the address located in one of the 22 neighborhood
planning districts with above average concentrations of the
neighborhood stress factors according to the City of Elgin
Planning Department ' s analysis . (NOTE: The Law Department
is researching methods to best assess the neighborhood impact
when making these decisions, the criteria will need to rely
upon factors relevant to housing conditions and zoning
considerations )
Quantity of Properties in Each Type
The number of properties in each category is estimated to be
as follows (of properties provided in listing to Task Force
dated July 11, 1996 ) :
Type Quantity
I 16
II 75
III 105
IV 12
Not enough information to categorize = 5
Relief/Enforcement Mechanisms for Each Type
Relief/enforcement mechanisms are recommended as follows :
Type I Confer Lawful Nonconforming Status . An ordinance
amendment affording lawful nonconforming status should be
developed for properties meeting the criteria in this type.
The text amendment to the zoning ordinance would list the
specific criteria required to be established before such a
determination is made. The criteria include provisions
showing the use was established during a national housing
shortage, that the creation of the use was tacitly approved by
the City, and that the use is not adversely affecting the
neighborhood. A submittal to the Zoning and Subdivision
Hearing Board ( ZSHB) would be required for this option,
appeals of ZSHB could be heard by the Elgin City Council .
p.
Unlawful Residential Uses Task Force
DRAFT Report * Page 4
Type II Confer a prosecution forbearance so long as the
current property owner owns and occupies the property. The
sole purpose of the prosecution forbearance hearing would be
to determine whether there are factual circumstances
surrounding the property' s unlawful nonconforming status to
justify the City' s temporary forbearance in prosecuting the
property owner for the violation. This hearing would not
address the zoning officer' s determination that an unlawful
nonconforming use is existing on the property; appeal process
already exist for property owner' s challenging that
determination. Rather, the purpose of the prosecution
forbearance hearing would be to determine the extent of the
property owner' s hardship and the unlawful nonconforming use' s
impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Based upon the testimony and evidence elicited at the hearing,
the ZSHB would then decide whether prosecution forbearance
is justified. The decision of the ZSHB would be final .
The ZSHB would be able to grant the time extension provided
the owner demonstrates the necessity for a time extension
based upon the criteria for these type of properties (owner-
ship, length of time use established, etc. ) . Under this
standard, the hardship imposed upon an innocent purchaser of
an unlawful nonconforming residential use would be distin-
guished from that of a property owner who knowingly added an
unlawful . dwelling unit, or any other similarly self-imposed
hardship. The property owner would also be required to
demonstrate that the time extension would not be detrimental
to the public welfare, be injurious or depreciate neighboring
property, and that the time extension is not based merely on a
desire to render a greater economic return from the property.
The time extension would be limited to the current ownership
of the property. The time extension would be required to be
recorded as a covenant with the land. Under this proposal, the
property would eventually revert to its lawful, conforming use
because the unlawful dwelling units would eventually be
eliminated.
Properties in this category would be eligible for the volun-
tary Multi-Family Conversion (MFC) program which reimburses
property owners for the cost of conversion (removing kitchens,
remodeling, removing extra plumbing and fixtures, extra
parking, etc . ) . Based upon the success of the MFC program
in attracting already existing lawful nonconforming properties
to deconvert, additional funding for the MFC should be
considered in the 1997 City of Elgin Budget in order to
accommodate the additional eligible properties .
Any property owner would be allowed to apply for relief with
the Zoning and Subdivision Hearing Board.
r
Unlawful Residential Uses Task Force
DRAFT Report * Page 5
Type III Confer a prosecution forbearance for a maximum
of five years . Same as Type II properties but the benefit of
having an owner-occupied property is not present. Therefore,
the prosecution forbearance is for a limited amount of time.
A greater hardship may be incurred by property owners living
in one unit and renting out another as opposed to situations
in which the entire property in used for purposes of
investment.
Type IV Enforce removal of the unlawful residential
uses . Properties in this category do not have
characteristics typically meet the ' innocent purchaser' test
or the ' neutral neighborhood effect ' criteria. The City of
Elgin should apply their resources strategically to make
improvements in the neighborhoods . The first priority should
be illegal units that do not meet code requirements for
habitability and basic safety. Basement units not meeting
exit requirements , ceiling heights, etc. , must be removed.
While maintaining its pursuit of other neighborhood
improvement priorities, the City should methodically begin
discussions with property owners regarding the removal of
unlawful units that are not brought forward for any of the
relief mechanisms outlined above.
Close the Window of Opportunity
The process of licensing rental properties in the City of
Elgin has been in effect since January 1, 1995 . Before rental
licensing there was a rental registration program which has
been used to identify unlawful nonconforming residential
uses . Moreover, comparisons have been made with Elgin
Township Assessor records in an attempt to further identify
multi-unit properties and thus lawful nonconforming uses . The
vast majority of properties have had rental licenses
applications submitted and thus have undergone the process of
a land use review.
Any addresses still not identified have been out of compliance
with licensing requirements while the vast majority of
property owners have taken part in the licensing program. A
deadline of of September 30, 1996 should be established for
any property owners to apply for the City's relief
mechanisms . Any unlawful residential uses appearing after
that date should come into compliance with the zoning
ordinance.
Unlawful Residential Uses Task Force
DRAFT Report * Page 6
Habitability
The number of units allowed is independent of the habitability
of those units according to the adopted property maintenance
codes . All units must meet the minimum requirements for
ceiling height, exiting, ventilation, etc .
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Gilliam Charlene Goldman
Bonnie Hill Erwin W. Jentsch
Edna Krueger Clay Pearson
Miriam Scott Betty Skyles
Dick Swanson Jennifer VanDuyn
Stuart Wasilowski Marie Yearman
July 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of Illegal Nonconforming Use Task Force
FROM: Erwin W. Jentsch, Corporation Counsel
SUBJECT: Illinois Law on Nonconforming Uses
Attached for your information are copies of two opinions of
the Illinois Appellate Court which are representative of
Illinois case law on the subject of the law of nonconforming
uses in Illinois . These cases illustrate some of the general
rules which are applicable. If after you have had an
opportunity to review these opinions you have any questions or
wish to discuss either or both of them, please do not hesitate
to call me.
Also enclosed is a copy of the statute®which provides that
effected neighboring property owners may file actions to
enforce the zoning ordinance.
nr
Attachments
,,- ,�'s t,-:;tpvati• .o scr 7A •4G {,..Y tr.: . r ��:i1 'r S� - •kit t.4• - ,.. { I- `11« A .+ ..,.6.?c:-- i '.i;.•.
,�,_,F:�•. P.G,r 3 th -�.„ " yt• ��v -,I. 'i a .- . +;"�� t r A a s.t r - r y..,
�•� . `Y may .+' ♦.- �,^P 4 . r+• .i sT,. =�- r,; � $. �+ ~�- E . :r!.: ,L 5• ri o 4"` l ,.5:
^,:� �y1'o � i,. ]L` y3, '}+�"$i'��:: 7- �: --•[h >'^� ...t � �-,,Z 4 y ♦ - r� .+i�^ 3: �i � y y�rx
rN,., i a cF r.:t. z -i ; r-.''Galt -0 'h'. firms.. .'b A - '! -;t ..',,.. T s ,$ 7.,r. a-F', "K u ` } ..r 7 a'.
',.,� •,rt>�•��,,- t-t4�,-i:44s t, !;-:•: ted"'n i+ r'• -�z,{� ::.r- `z�s `>T,ftk ->r` ; .:7: _;„a.'r ;...-7.."- r wilt*.z-: -'' t : lt:
1-e, 5•Ilvi Lr % 4•e' ( - '�•F0.,:t-.Y :?..-4 7-s`-9,-7 •+r 3: rt t^xf „ ;. .gnat F ..,r'_ ..q k'Cv f l 4.5'14:,1�` i:;:::-.4:-;''-'.‘:....�• ,r rn .
�ii � .G �.�i��",�!'�i +Kl to- q41 4y-.a- -.:•...--.';,-,1Pya h {M �, '� '< ♦" 7.
""~"'�4:iG '•h.Y; ,..:ti_.' :r. nw ...r : �.� rj� �.?t���..1•y.. �w ''`s.. �'sle...,.w -'s'Y c' r ". •
c:-"j OT RVCK.roRD 7. JALLEyIQ.� I �`. :;y:Z..K."
1_`J ill.Ap0._d 73 officers in : .ernait., - _onstr_lction r� :;- .1. . °
CITY OF ROCKFORD, a .Municipal Corpo- _:ori of ,,..- o-- 'a:ne', ;orc',i' • , "A-�%`,
c : sy,;
ration, °Iaintiff-.�ppeilant, forming- _.se .e ar__.,_..t__ uDi;.' :on- t!r� Fs- g.;
'I C:nua::Cn �_ .a',v.... use ,..\: u z A: - _ Or 1 ::
}
adoption of ordinance.
Carl T. SALLEE. and Virginia Sallee,
Defendants-.appellees.
Gen. No. 69-199. 3. Zoning l61 Ii! 'l: •t_
s
Illegal :;nuance of perm:: by --t:-;- „� r
Appell.lte I,oitrc of I::inois. °•
istertai office: does , as general rifle, (�� e,
5�',:onli Dtst:•:ct. ;t
estop T.,.un:cipaii: T fr.."r 'iy. n; 3n .;leT_fl-
;
Sepc. 17. 1970. - '
ty n ot,.v ithstandin J -act _hat aaplivant may I( _
have expended money or incur-ed obiiga-
cions in good faith a- _u5u0stantt'1 reit- -;.
City sought injunction against detend-
ance upon permit. �.� ,�K-
ants' use of former church building as ware- ; `r-_
house and use of former parsonage as both
home and business office. The Circuit
4. Estoppel ;�62(-I) t'
Court, Winnebago County, ''William R. Mere nonaction a.. city is insufficient 1'e
:ash, J., dented IRjunctior, and city ap- t0 invoke doctrine •ii equitable estoppel. S
pealed. The _Appellate Cour:, Seice^field,
J., :Held that where defendants had actual 5. Zoning ;x161 i;{
or constructive knowledge of residential
zoning Classification of subject property- IA/here Ceten,cants had already OCCu- •S�
pied and used church premises in manner
before application was made and granted
- - -
for building permit CO construct loading proscribed by both count.: and city zoning a;
dock and overhead garage dopy in COR- ordinances prior to g:-a- oI city permit to
vection with use Of proper:,: as warehouse, remove. C:;uru Ste'p.', defendants could •
and record was silent as to amount of e c- not logically contend that they relied on . -
penditures made by defendants upon such
cit,: per-ll: to :heir detriment :n their non-
alleged reliance, defendants .were not en- conforming use of church zoned -t'sl-
titled to rely dential as storage fac in connection with 3
upon issuance prior to annexa-
defendants' floor tile installation business.
tion of area by city, of county permit, as Si
i
constituting acquiescence in defendants'
I nonconforming use of property on ground 6. Zoning x461 .
i that defendants in good faith substantially Where record was devoid of any indica-
.-
1
ndica-
it changed their position by reason of permit's tion that city was made aware of defend- 'R
issuance- ants' nonconforming use of church and t
sanctioned such use when permit issued,
Reversed and remanded .with directions. '
city's grant of permit to remove steeple on
4
church zoned .A-resident:al did not consti-
I. Zoning —231 Cute city's acquiescence :n defendants' non-
Power of county zone employee to conforming use of church as warehouse.
J
construe provisions of zoning ordina ce s •{ •
subject to proviso that order of such y• Zoning - 461 is
1 ministerial officer is not in contravention ;
Where defendants had actual or cot.-
of ordinances existing at time of the structive knowledge of residential zoning
i i•
decision. classification of church property before `'
Iapplication was made and granted for ii • .
2. Zoning X321
building permit to construct loading dock
Lawful nonconforming use cannot be and overhead garage door in connection l
predicated upon act of county's ministerial with use of church as warehouse, and rec- ;t
i
I. : '
i � i
S
T�+? n_;.,:.-,,.....: t . - ' t .- c •Tf+-�.}.. a.... _ . fir, _Iv,. ti - •-",, .-.^'\� :"r . . . .-. A.., , , r ^,�. ct. .y'' ' .....,
s _ _
486 Iii. 262 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
'• ord was silent as to amount of expenditures constructive knowledge of the existing zon-
made by defendants upon such alleged re- ing classification prior to their purchase.
liance, defendants were not entitled to rely
. 1. upon issuance of county permit as constitut- Some ten days after purchasing the prop-
ing acquiescence in defendants' noncon- erty, defendants applied for a county build-
forming use on ground that defendants in ing permit to construct a loading dock and
good faith substantially changed their posi- overhead garage door. Mr. Sallee told the
• tion by reason of permit's issuance. employees of the County Building Depart-
_1::. ment of his intended use of the church
�. 8. Zoning Ca273 building as a warehouse in connection with
' Where defendants' business activity in his floortile installation business and his '
• . ''•
former church and parsonage was not con- intended use of the parsonage as both a resi- .
-'1
' ducted solely within parsonage, in which de-
..,t"; fendants resided, or from an "accessory" roneously told by a county zoning employee
! building on same lot, business involved reg- that such use was permissible as long as
ular outside employee, not a member of the the defendants did not sell any goods at re-
1• I family, articles offered for sale were not tail. A permit was granted to build an •
.
`! 18 inch platform and an access door at the
�•-: , produced on premises, and it could not be
said that use was such as would be cus- rear of the building.
tomarily incidental to residential use of
1,: dwelling, defendants' use of church prem- In April of 1967, the property was annex-
' ' ises as storage facility for floor tile in- ed into the City of Rockford and placed in
- •
`i,a.` an A-Residential use district by City Ordi-
1.i; stallation business and use of parsonage .
` as both home and business office was not nonce. In March of 1968, the City issued
ii • within "home-occupation" exemption per- a building permit to remove the church
t' miffed in residential area. steeple.
Also in March of 1968, the Sallees moved c
i=.'i _____..._— their residence into the former parsonage. •
,l John W. Nielsen, City Atty., Rockford, On or about April 9th, 1968, the City Build-
r Inspector, responding to a complaint,
• for appellant. ing P g P
i 7 I inspected the premises and informed the i
`- Reno, Zahm, Folgate & Skolrood, Rock- defendants of a zoning violation involving
ford, for appellees. the use of the church as a warehouse which i
defendants were ordered to cease.
• •*'. SEIDENFELD, Justice. r
No evidence of the cost of the modifica •
-
The city sought an injunction against de- tions made to the premises was offered.
fendants' use of a former church building The evidence of business activity on the
as a warehouse, and against the use of
` premises included testimony by Mr. Sallee
•- G the former parsonage as both a home and a ,
i that two customers per month came to his
business office. This appeal is from the home to see samples and that such demon
denial of the injunction. strations resulted in approximately ten per-
The property was purchased by the de- cent of his gross business. There was fur-
•
.. ! fendants in 1966. The lot containing the ther evidence that two panel trucks were
i church building was then zoned B-Residen- used in connection with the business, carry- •
tial, the lot containing the residence was ing the legend "Ted Sallee's Floor Con-
•
then zoned A-Residential, both under the tractors". One truck remained on the
` county zoning ordinances. The church premises, the other was driven to the home 1
building was immediately used to store ma- of defendants' one full time employee each
terials. The Sallees had either actual or night. ,
„, may ,.. a '` ♦-. -! ”•Lf .'3". -,:: "1. 1- M..- t ( h f Mi'th r.. - J� .. t Y..
f al ,$ „� ,,:, t'.< 4 .0 F ti y. ie-,..5;..f.-1-
:,.,,v —a ,+f e y { r 4 µ? ♦1 / ' - -I
r.
�. .* .y ..,7._.Z,, J�i .F ,t _, .L';'......,!,-:'.;1^',:.. .;',
w �. ';',...4.1.4%=:;!-;.:• -A•"r y::--77 ...c..,.. .�-, -fr::ttg.,,,T.-;,:::;' ,.. ;' i.-A7-1-- . r
.r,. w....-t r + ♦ .t%. T r �..,•'- A ,351;a-rf s' J -4� y ,r
11. w 7 " it f' , O 4 ftJ ..�. •+w+ r4,V.:';''''':.:-4-';',:i"' J .J - -ej ..fes _.' - V --':,
"' 7 " .� s� -?i -•, , •�• � ' rr �- zr tit T S te..'A.t• .:rL y i}%I C{r°.'•y. i -f.:-: Y y ,t_ .
,.1.N. �� y '.1i t X f,i.>f - ..r' ...: :r rr i +� •�i1 Wi r5ry t` ;. ', .:- .G,
..` . r't , »' x-t- _ r 2 rt i .'+. a ,., --f.?:h N 1i.-. 't?t. w G? zy. ,c--� j,`tr : ".{ f lr • ,� e Y ,
`":'-r ........:;,.5'..._-_=;;-
I
zf+r ,, .':' •.., .h. .. :Y✓l.. _ ?. ...•;��-? � �, ir. . -✓,.} `1.,�nx, >'• .*•-•,...•,---....-...,,,;,-;,•,,....t..”.,; .......,.:' ? ,. �),',;
.
i
CITY OF ROCKFORD 7. S?.LL,EE Ill. 487 "' '
cite as_d^_N.E.2d:S5 ,.,s. :tic
The decree contained findings 5y the continuation of a lawf_l use existing at the y;
tai Court that defendants' a'e atiOn of the time Of the adoption :he ordinance. �.
t former church ouilding was made in veli- Eggert v. Board of Appeals, 29 II1.2d 391, r..
..-::::::::'..--',7;:-:;.•-••••••:-. ..
ante upon the issuance of a County Build- 396, 19 N.E.2d 10-* 19o3) , Exchange
ing Permit and Chat the defendants made Nat. Bank o: Chicago '.. . .!.age of Skokie,
no misrepresentations to secure the permit. 36 Ill.Aop.2d =C3, 412, 229 N.E.2d 913 'r.;• j'
The court further found that defendants (1967). See also - nno. 5 _A.L.R.2d 936,960, =
conducted certain limited lousiness activity, 962; Count;- of Cook v. Triem Steel 3t
such as record-keeping, telephone conversa- Processing, Inc., 19 I::.Apo.3d 1.26, 129, .`-
tions and demonstrations of materials and 133 Ni.E.2d 272- (1933). _
color samples to an average of tsvo custom-
ers per month resulting in approximately [3j Under the great •.'eight of author-
ten pe-cent of defendants' gross business; i.v the illegal issuance of a permit by a
that .^.o business signs were used; and that ministerial oi;icer does -or, as a general
no retail or wholesale sales were made rule, estop a muriicioaiit;- from relyina- on
from :he property. The court decreed that the illegality, notwithstanding the fact that
the use of the premises did not constitute the applicant may have expended money
a nuisance, that use of the residence con- or incurred ooligadons in good faith and in
stituted a "home-occupation" exception un- substantial reliance upon :-e permit. Arno.
der the :1-Residential zoning regulations or 1 A L.R?d 333, 331; _=1nno. 6 3.L.R.2d,
the City of Rockford, tnat the use of the supra, at page 963. See 3ur-cn Co. v. City
church: was lawfully non-conforming and of Chicago, 936 Ill. 333. 391, 86 N+.E. 93
that the city was equitably estoppe,; from (1908) ; 0I se y. City of Chicago, 133 III.
interfering with the warehouse use. App. 213, 220 (1913) ; ;ohnson v. City of
Chicago, 107 IlLAop.2d 132, 190, 246 V.E.
The city urges that the basis for equitable 2d 113 (1969) ; Sinclair Refining Co. v.
estoppel must be an act of the city and not Cit,; of Chicago, 246 ili._,pp 132, 161, 162
merely that of a ministerial employee; that (1927) -
the use of a home by defendants does not _
come within the borne-occupation exemp- Defendants rely upon People ex rel.
tion; and that there is no lawful non-con- American Nat. Bk. 3c Trust Co. of Chicago
forming use under the facts of the case. v. Smith, 110 Ill.Apo.2d 331, 249 N.E.2d
232 (1969), and cases therein cited, in
[1,2] It appears from the record that support of the argument that the city is !
the classification of Lot 16, under the Coun- equitably estopped to urge the invalidity of
ty Zoning Ordinance, permitted the use of either the County building permit, or the
the property for church purposes but ex- City's permit to raze the steeple issued
cluded its use as a warehouse, and the trial subsequent to the annexation of the prop- i
r -
court so found.: A lawful non-conforming erty into the city. It is argued that equita-
use cannot be predicated upon the act of ole estoppel involves a determination of the
the County's ministerial officers in per- facts present in the particular case before
e
mitting the construction of a loading dock it. Thus defendants urge that the issuance
and an overhead garage door in violation of of a permit, the giving of full information
the zoning ordinance; rather, a non-con- to the County zoning employees, the modi- j
forming use must be predicated upon the fications made to the building, the lapse of
i
I. Defendants have argued that the County rule is the subject to the proviso that i
Zoning employee had the power to con- the order of the ministerial officer is not
strue the provisions of the zoning onli- in contravention of ordinances existing at
nance, relying on People ex rel. Inter- the time of the decision. i See the opin-
chemical Corp. v. Chicago, 29 I11.2d 446, ion at page 148, 194 N.E_'d 199.)
194 Y.E.2d 199 (1963). However, this
I
s:
s,. 488 Ill. 262 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
•,. more than two years between the acquisi- fendants had already occupied and used the
ft
i tion of the County zoning permit and the church premises in a manner proscribed by
t; challenge by the city, and the evidence that both the county and city zoning ordinances
the present use was not adverse to public prior to the grant of the city permit to re-
.5 health, safety, morals and general welfare, move the steeple, it cannot logically be con-
support the judgment below. The city tended that the defendants relied on the
=a. also relies upon the opinion in Smith and city permit in their use of the church as a
points out that there must be a showing of storage facility.
- positive acts of municipal officials which •
'`t induced action by the plaintiff in order to [6] We reject the contention that by its
support the doctrine of equitable estoppel. grant of the steeple removal permit the
While the court in Smith, at pages 366, city acquiesced in the defendants' use of
367, 249 N.E 2d 232, recognized that the the church as a warehouse. The record is
!F doctrine of equitable estoppel may be in- devoid of any indication that the city was
yoked where action has been induced by the thereby made aware of defendants' use of
� ' conduct of municipal officials, and where, the church in a proscribed manner and sane-
=f.!., tioned such use when the permit issued.
- -:,ii:i in the absence of such relief, a municipality
would be permitted to stultify itself by re-
`j tracting what its agents had done, it also [7] The major thrust of defendants'
-li . declared, that estoppel could not be based argument is that they were entitled to
--':% : upon issuance of a permit through an ad- rely upon the issuance of the county permit
Ti; ministrative mistake of a member of the because they in good faith substantially
municipal staff involving no policy de- changed their position by reason of its is-
• ;' j' cisions. suance. However, good faith reliance is
• `'Li;` substantially diminished by their actual or
. ', The trial court here found that it was in- constructive knowledge of the residential
equitable to deny defendants' use of the classification of the pro erty before appli-
premises in the manner shown because they cation was made for the permit. Further,
.
- • had substantially changed their position in the record is silent as to the amount of ex-
good faith and with the apparent acqui- penditures made by defendants upon such
- ..1 i escence of both the county and the city alleged reliance.
' ; officials over the period of time involved.
We are of the opinion, however, that the
[8] The use of Lot 18 was found by the
I.
court misconceives its authority to apply court below to be within the city zoning
general principles of equity to the case. ordinance as a "home-occupation", an ex-
-.../ ception permitted in a residential area. We
.`1 t [4] The more precise and limited princi- are of the opinion that this was erroneous.
pies of the doctrine of equitable estoppel ra- It is not argued that such use was non-con-
"," they must be applied, and we find no acts of forming inasmuch as defendants did not
?., government authority in the record suf- begin to reside in the parsonage and use it
.`•i` - I ficient to invoke the doctrine. Mere non- in connection with their business activities
li _: . action by a city is insufficient to invoke until after the annexation by the city.
estoppel. Gregory v. City of Wheaton, 23 The city ordinance provided an exception to
,- Ill.2d 402, 408, 178 N.E 2d 358 (1961). See the A-Residence district for "accessory
i:• also Haba v. Cuff, 201 N.E.2d 343, 346, 347 uses incidental to the above uses, includ-
(Ohio App.1963). ing private garages, home occupations, and
signs advertising premises for sale or rent,
,
[5] Moreover, essential elements of the but not the conduct of any retail or whole-
doctrine of equitable estoppel against the sale business or manufacture". A further
city have not been proven. Because the de- provision of the zoning ordinance defined
n
r. y �-_.-..,,-.7.,,,,-;.•;$--.-- ._,z w` _ y r .r ;y'?" r ?�' r "" . _\_,- ✓ v ..::
`5 tr'1rPL �p. rf f� - d` 1.T - y Jul{ ..y ;y a _
•..�, s ;n x -,-t' - <.., ,.. _ s ,r. - . ^ +.l _ - -e. y r, > r - .
y �. , +`r.a_ -:.r"` �, ":.K 47: -r.,u,F !',l s+Lxt7r -...'y„ :,.;. •.` " .. ..-s E.•'r >'.-.' Vis"; �'?:: •v.. j y ,. ,-..:.'•y
G i-r ,I w'islta7 .+ �r,; y�_ .r�c:tea Ipr.1::. Y ,{�7 4 `:- 1 :.♦7a yx. t•. .I'• , is rt y S �_ ti>_,.
: 't •CSP ,i ,tom 4 S �. >ux£.. pC�-si ,r Sr y-. '' r. ✓. r St+ ...y r- •'c. '.. .2 i [ e t:.J.:
3,/yrZ..:µ fl 'u Y s ? _"rti' `,-a`�.,y rd .a. ! r, .±r s%„4:i ..iA''✓ s., 1 - t'� •` - 'V:;;t x..�, --.... L i c:
L"��J :t'K 1' s�b'►":�s�_,�.i...-,fh . ,;w°xr_..i?-_r. .. ari:. . -_..a. � _:::. _ - _•-r-�..: .. . � � :
1• i •� 1
,i
ADA`rIS 7. GRACE Ili- 4,39
x
Cite as^_fin_N.E.2(1 16f)
home occupation as an gainful occupation 1^_S El.3pp^d 69 i• ? - sem"
or profession engaged in by an occupant of Luther B. ADA\1S and Lillie Adams, 1.....;-.....:-::::11--::::1-1',':--:::.....:•..:-::'..'...
�fT
...- :-�
a dwelling unit as a use •.vr;ch fs incidental Plaintiffs-Appellants,
-_
to the use or the d.velling unit for resider- v tz.
tial purposes". The Drdina-'Le further pro-
vided that the occupation must be carried Blazier, and William Grace, De-
on wholly within theg rincipal building or
p a Pendants-Appellees. '
within a building accessory thereto and No. o9-94. i
: r
only by members of the family occupying
the premises. It also provided that no arti- _.ppellate Court of Illinois.
c'.e should be sold or offered for sale on Fifth District.
the premises except such as is produced by At.e. -, IY') :1 -,
the occupation on the premises. _A. further
provision defined accessory buildings as
buildings wnich must be on the same lot Action to enforce contract for sale of
as the main building and the use of which
property, in which defendants filed counter-
is clearly incidental to use of a main build- claim that such contract be declared null
and void. The Circuit Court, Gallatin ,.
Ing. r.
County, Don Foster, J., denied plair.tifis-
Defendants' use and business activities counterdefendants' motion to vacate de-
could not be said to be \vithin such excep- fault judgment and prior ruling sustaining
tion. The business activity was not con- defendants-counterpia:-a:f;s' cross motion • •
ducted solely within the residence or from to strike counterdefendants' motion to va-
an accessory building on the same lot; the care. Plaintiffs-c ounZerdefenda-its appeal-
business involved a regular outside em- ed. The Appellate Cour., George J. Moran,
ployee, not a member of the family; the P. J., held that where courterplaintifis had
articles offered for sale were not those not shown any hardship _:;at ,,vould jeooar-
produced on the premises; and it could not dize their position if the,: ..were required to
be said that the use was such as would be go to trial on merits, order would be re-
customarily incidental to the residential use versed with instructions to set aside de- i
of the dwelling. Village of Riverside v. fault judgment, though allegations of coun-
Kuhne, 335 IlLApp. 347, 560-562, 82 N.E.2d terclaim and evidence created triable quer-
5C0 (1943) ; Nelson American Law of Zon- tion of fact, and though counterdefendants'
ing, Section 10:02; City of Muskegon counsel, without valid excuse, and apparent-
Heights v. Wilson, 363 Mich. 263, 109 N.W. ly without knowledge of counterdefendants, i
2d 768, 770--771 (1961) ; Maurer v. Snyder, failed to file answer to counterclaim and, '
199 Md. 531, 37 A.2d 612, 613 (1952) ; Per- though receiving notice of motion for de-
ron v. City of Concord, 102 N.H. 32, 130 fault judgment, did not appear.
A.2d 403, 405, 406 (1959). .
Reversed and remanded with direc-
In our viewof the case, we do not reach tions.
the issue which the plaintiff has raised on
the pleadings. I. Appeal and Error 1176(I)
•
We reverse and remand with directions Where defendants-counterolaint;ifs had
to grant the municipality's prayer for in- not shown any hardship that would jeop-
junction. ardize their position if they were re-
•
quired to go to trial on merits, order de-
Reversed and remanded with directions. •
nying plaintiffs-counterdefendants' motion •
to vacate default judgment and prior ruling
DAVIS, P. J., and ABRAHAMSON, J., sustaining defendants-counterplaintiffs'
concur. cross motion to strike counterdefendants' i
262 'I E.2d-31 tit
•
.fry>'
1 449 S ,
409 N.E.2d 450 WELCH v. CITY OF EVANSTON 835
order Cite as,App.,42 111.Dec.835,409 N.E.24 450
s not Reese Hospital and Medical Center (1978), 87IlI.App.3d 1017
zel v 61 I11.App.3d 233, 18 Ill.Dec.404,377 N.E.2d 409 N.E.2d 450 -
.E.2d 1040.) Although Supreme Court Rule Walter S. WELCH, as Trustee, Under
1966), 103(b) provides that an action may be dis- Trust Agreement dated June 28, 1974,
missed as to an unserved defendant if the and Ross S. Welch, Plaintiffs-Appel-
plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable dili- tants,
e in- gence to obtain service (I11.Rev.Stat.1979, j
fin,-`4.
ch. 110A, par. 103(b)), such dismissals are V. i
e ade within the sound discretion of the trial CITY OF EVANSTON, a Municipal Cor- '
court(Martin v. Lozada(1974),23 I1l.App.3d oration, Etc., Defendant-A
tered, 8, 318 N.E.2d 334), and it is possible that p ppellee. i
t any Atkinson could still be served with sum-
which CITY OF EVANSTON, a Municipal
mons and a judgment entered against him
irties. Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,
which could be the subject of an appeal.
fault Such a result would conflict with the pur- v. .
cause .
pose of Rule 304(a), which is "to discourage J. Pte;SCHERMERHORN & COMPANY
s and ` piecemeal appeals in the absence of just
juris- (Agent), Ross S. Welch, Albert R. Welch
reason, and to remove the uncertainty and Walter S. Welch, Defendants-Appel-
Tin 30 which exists when a final judgment is en-
!ants.!ants.
nted
tered on less than all matters in the contro-
nt on versy." (Petersen Brothers Plastics, Inc. v. No. 79-1321.
Ullo, 57 Ill.App.3d at 630, 15 Ill.Dec. at 74,
order 373 N.E.2d 420; also see Blanchette v. Mar- Appellate Cot of Illinois,
peala- tell (1977), 52 Il1.App.3d 1029, 10 Ill.Dec. First District, First Division.
03 Ill. 863, 368 N.E.2d 458.) In view thereof, we Aug. 25, 1980.
2r, be- believe that although Atkinson was not
that served with summons when the default Rehearing Denied Sept. 22, 1980.
ion to judgment was entered against the Metzlers, ,
ler his he was still a named defendant and a party Action was brought to obtain declara-
be at- within the context of Rule 304(a) and, in tory judgment and injunctive relief against
-others the absence of the finding "that there is no city to prevent it from eliminating base- ;
\pp•3d just reason for delaying enforcement or ap- ment apartment in building owned by plain-
peal," the trial court had jurisdiction to tiffs. City filed quasi-criminal complaint
Tat the vacate the default judgment. against plaintiffs for elimination of the
rhts of Thus, because the trial court having prop- apartment. After consolidation of the ac-
though erly vacated the default judgment on the tions, the Circuit Court, Cook County,
t with basis of section 50(5), we have no need to George J'. Schaller, J., entered judgment in
I with consider the justification of vacatur under favor of city, and plaintiffs appealed. The
t "par- plaintiff's alternative request for section 72 Appellate Court, First District,Goldberg, P. I
etzlers relief. Further, since we have found that J., held that: (1) application for permit and
e; and the trial court in fact had jurisdiction to the permit, which was issued pursuant to
nt en- vacate the default judgment,and since such such application, prevented owner from
tion of an order is not appealable, the instant ap- building more than a ten-unit apartment
agree. peal will be dismissed. building; (2) plaintiffs had waived right to
rice of Appeal dismissed. rely on admissions of city which had failed
is no to make timely response to request for cer-
'endant LORENZ and MEJDA, JJ., concur. tain admissions including an admission that
Ylichael it had not been customary to count and ask
w a permit for a janitor's apartment; (3) find-
\, par. 0 E KEY NUMBER SYSTEM
41 111. r
ings contrary to contention that it was the
custom not to count janitor's apartment in
an application for a permit was not against
I
I
836 42 ILLINOIS DECISIONS 409 N.E.2d 451
manifest weight of the evidence; (4)even if failure to timely respond, introduced evi-
such a custom had existed, such custom dence as to the custom and practice when
would not have indicated that the eleventh the building was built and as to the exist-
apartment was lawfully established so as to ence of the eleventh apartment when the
be a permissible nonconforming use; (5)use building was erected. Supreme Court
of eleventh apartment had been abandoned; Rules, Rules 216, 216(c), S.H 4. ch. 110A,
t (6) fact that use of eleventh apartment had §§ 216, 216(c).
been in existence for more than 52 years did
not estop city from taking steps to elimi- 4. Zoning and Planning X645
nate the use; and (7) refusal to grant new In consolidated actions which involved '
Xtrial on basis of previous owner's and man- issue as to whether use of an eleventh
aging agent's affidavits, which stated that apartment within a building was legal when
they had never given up or abandoned built in 1925 under a permit for construc-
claim that eleventh apartment was legal in tion of ten-unit apartment building, finding
all respects and that apartment had been contrary to contention that there had been
kept vacant for about three years after a custom of not counting a janitor's apart-
` agent wrote certain letter, was not abuse of ment in application for a permit was not
1: against manifest weight of the evidence.
1;
discretion.
Judgment affirmed. 5. Zoning and Planning X323
. Even if it had been the custom, when
i 11-unit apartment building was built in
r 1. Zoning and Planning X321 1925 undera permit for construction of a
If a use is illegal at its inception, it ten-unit apartment building, that a janitor's
Icannot be a "nonconforming use" so as to apartment was not to be counted in an
! be protected from elimination for violation application for a permit, such custom would
L of present zoning ordinances. not have established that the eleventh
See publication Words and Phrases apartment was "lawfully established" so as
for i•
defini ons.judicial constructions and to be a permissible nonconforming use, in
` light of fact that a custom could not be
2. Zoning and Planning X391 invoked to avoid a settled rule or law.
Application, in which owner sought is-
suance of permit to build ten-unit apart- 6. Customs and Usages X10
ment building and under which owner Custom cannot be invoked to avoid a
agreed to "conform to and comply with the settled rule or to prevail against or over-
conditions of the [permit] ' * '" and come a statute.
to build"in strict accordance with accompa- 7. Zoning and Planning 4=337
nying description," and the permit, which •
Use of an eleventh apartment within
was issued pursuant to such application, building had been "abandoned" where, in
prohibited building of 11-unit apartment direct response to denial of zoning varia-
building.
tion, owners voluntarily stopped renting
3. Zoning and Planning 4=2741 apartment for more than the 120-day period
In consolidated actions which involved stipulated in ordinance as the maximum
an issue as to whether use of eleventh time that the use could be discontinued
apartment within building was legal when before conformity to the present use regu-
established and in which city failed to make lations would become necessary.
timely response to requests for certain ad- See publication Words and Phrases
missions including an admission that it had for other judicial constructions and
definitions.
not been customary to count and ask a
permit for a janitor's apartment, plaintiffs 8. Zoning and Planning X762
waived right to rely on city's admissions Fact that illegal use consisting of rent-
where plaintiffs, who were aware of the al of an eleventh apartment within a build-
44.1
'
•
51 409 N.E.2d 452 WELCH v. CITY OF EVANSTON 837
Cite as,App.,42 IILDec.835,409 N.E.2d 450 t
,.i- ing had been in existence for almost 52 The apartment is located in a 3-story $ 1!{
en years did not estop city from taking steps to brick apartment building in Evanston.
st-
eliminate such use, absent any indication Plaintiffs acquired the building in 1974. 1
he that city's officials had taken any action The original owners of the property applied
in which may have induced owners of building for a building permit on December 1, 1925 1
or any previous owner to maintain the elev- to construct a 3-story brick 10-apartment I
enth apartment. building. The permit was issued December
2, 1925.
9. Zoning and Planning X721 At that time, the 1921 Evanston zoning
ed In consolidated actions in which it was
ordinance was in effect. This zoned the
,th determined that eleventh apartment within property for commercial use and permitted {
en dwelling was not a legal nonconforming use up to 16-apartment units. In 1927, the
1C- because building permit was for only ten ordinance was amended to increase the lot
ng apartments and there was an abandonment area requirement per apartment. Less f
en of use of eleventh apartment, refusal toi,
than 10-apartment units would have been •
rt- grant new trial on basis of previous owner's permitted on the property. Under the
lot and managing agent's affidavits stating present (1960) Evanston zoning ordinance,
that theynevergave upor abandoned claim 'I'
ce. the property is located in a ` B-2 Business G
that eleventh apartment was legal in allDistrict" and only 3-apartment units could j j. .
respects and that apartment was kept va- be built thereon. i•i
:en cant for about three years after agent i
inwrote letter indicating that apartment In April 1966, while the building was still
a would be voluntarily vacated after denial of under prior ownership, tIn inspection by de-
'r s zoning variation was not abuse of discre- Pendant showed 11 apartments in the build
an tion, in that affidavits added no new ele- ing including two in the basement. The •; i .
_lid ment to facts brought out at trial. owner applied to the Zoning Board of Ap-
Ith peals for a variance. The board recom-
as mended the appeal be denied. Defendant's
in Ross S. Welch, Chicago, for plaintiffs-ap- city council concurred in this decision. In a
bepellants. letter to defendant, the then managing
w agent for the building indicated one of the
Jack M. Siegel, Corp. Counsel, City of basement apartments would be vacated on i_
Evanston, Chicago, for defendant-appellee. September 1. 1966, and would be kept va-
I a cant "until we are able to trace the owner-
or- GOLDBERG, Presiding Justice: ship back to such a time as is required to
Walter S. Welch, as trustee under a trust justify this as an acceptable 11 apartment _
agreement dated June 28, 1974, and Ross S. building."
lin Welch (plaintiffs) brought this action for Numerous inspections of the building
in declaratory judgment and injunctive relief were made after the vacation of the 11th •
•ia- against the City of Evanston (defendant) to apartment. As late as July 12, 1976 (after
ng prevent defendant from eliminating a two- plaintiffs acquired the building) a certifi-
iod room basement apartment in a building cate of inspection showed the building con-
.im owned by plaintiffs. Defendant filed a tained 10 apartments and conformed to the
led quasi-criminal complaint against plaintiffs requirements of the zoning ordinance.
rut seeking elimination of the apartment. Commencing on October 1, 1976, the apart-
These actions were consolidated by the cir- ment was leased to a tenant by plaintiffs. .
cuit court. After a bench trial, the court Ross Welch, a qualified attorney, testified
entered judgment in favor of defendant in that prior to acquiring the property he in-
both actions, fined plaintiffs $10 and or- spected the building including the apart- : '
dered plaintiffs to terminate the use of the ment in controversy. The apartment was
nt- apartment within 90 days. Plaintiffs ap- occupied by a tenant. Welch did not make
Id- peal. a request to defendant to verify the zoning
838 42 ILLINOIS DECISIONS 409 N.E2d 453 409
status of the property nor did he inspect ed in buying an Evanston apartment build- apar
any of defendant's records prior to purchas- ing could request defendant to inspect the and
ing the property. Mr. Welch testified it building for compliance with the zoning and zoni
- was not the custom for realty closing attor- building codes free of charge. Defendant no
neys to apply to municipalities for certifi- had performed this service since 1971. ' pros
cates of compliance before closing a pur- Ed Nehring, property inspector for de- fies
i chase of an apartment building. Mr. Welch fendant, testified he had been employed in p
also stated he had no knowledge of the this capacity for 15 years. In 1966 Nehring the
application for a zoning variance made by inspected the building and the basement I for
the previous owners in 1966. apartment. That apartment was occupied sho
Jack Schermerhorn testified he was the by a Mrs. Hydrack. There were 11-apart- mit
plaintiffs' managing agent of the apart- ment units in the building in 1966. After sue
ment building since 1974. His management the action by the city council in 1966, the Ho
company was also a defendant in the quasi- use of the 11th apartment was discontinued. cus
criminal case. In his opinion the trim, On October 20 and 26, 1976, Nehring-rein-
flooring, walls, door and window openings, spected the building and found the 11th fie
• plumbing and lighting fixtures, wiring and apartment was,reoccupied and there were par
appliances in the apartment in controversy new fixtures in it. 1 cor
I. were installed at the time of the construc- Nehring stated he had known Carl Ber- qu
tion of the building. Schermerhorn knew a quist. In 1966, Berquist lived at 920 Green- at
plumber contractor named Carl Berquist wood Avenue and not at the apartment in rut
I who had lived in the basement apartment question. Nehring had examine*the tele-
1 from 1925 until 1967. The apartment had phone book for 1965 and 1966 which showed th,
been occupied continuously by a tenant Berquist lived at that address. Nehring sot
since 1974. also examined the "Polk City Directory" me
i 1 Schermerhorn stated that in 1925 "it was which lists the names of the occupants of i ru
t the practice of the City of Evanston to have buildings in Evanston according to address. 1 Pe
in a building permit one additional apart- He examined these directories for the years hi:
1. ment for the janitor in addition to the num- 1935, 1937, 1948 and 1963. In 1935, 10 1 ca
ber of apartments listed." He had become family names were listed at the address of
familiar with the practices of defendant by the building in question. In 1937, 11 family 1 a,
looking at building permits, plans and lay- names were listed; in 1948, nine names; 1 ar
outs of buildings built in 1925 or earlier. and in 1963, seven names. In addition, the Si
On cross-examination, Schermerhorn testi- 1948 book showed Berquist lived at 920 to
fled it was the practice to designate a jani- Greenwood.
tor's apartment on the plan. Schermerhorn Nehring further testified that in 1925, it
•
further stated he had never examined de- was not the custom not to include the jani-
fendant's records to determine the legal tor's apartment in the total number of
status of the building in question. apartments when applying for a permit.
Michael Garland, assistant director of the Based on his examination of many plans
zI
Department of Inspections and Permits for and permits the only exception would be if
defendant, testified it was customary prac- the apartment were the only one in the
tice in the 1920's not to list the janitor's basement and the janitor actually lived on
apartment as a unit in the building permit the premises. Then the apartment would
if it was the only unit in the basement not be included in the number of units
• However, if there was one apartment estab- listed on the permit Also,in a small apart-
)
lished in the basement by virtue of the ment building, such as the one in question,
permit or plans of the building, there would it was not"uniformly accepted" to install a
be no such practice as permitting a second janitor's apartment
apartment in the basement for the janitor. Nehring corroborated Garland's testimo-
Garland further testified a person interest- ny that defendant would inspect an existing
t
Al
453 409 N.E.2d 454 WELCH v. CITY OF EVANSTON 839
Cite as,App.,42 I11.Dec.833,409 N.E.2d 450
Id- apartment building at a purchaser's request Defendant did not make a timely re-
:he and certify the building's compliance with sponse to the request. (See Ill.Rev.Stat.
.nd zoning and building requirements. There is 1979, ch. 110A, par. 216(c).) The trial court
int no requirement the prospective purchaser ruled numbers 1 and 2 above were admitted
provide a survey before defendant so certi- facts and were also proved by the evidence.
de- fies. The trial court also stated:
in David Rasmussen, an appeals officer for "On 3, because of the failure to answer,
,ng the defendant, testified he had seen plans the Court started with the accepted fact
.nt for buildings constructed in the 1920's that that it was not customary to count and
ied showed a janitor's apartment but the per- ask a permit for the apartment to be
.rt- mits for these same buildings did not count furnished to the building janitor. How-
ter such apartments in the number of units. ever, you [plaintiffs] put a witness on the
the However, he refused to state this was a stand, Mr. Jack Schermerhorn, whose tes- 1 ,
ed. customary practice. timony was to the contrary. His testimo •
-
,in- Albert Welch, brother of plaintiffs, testi- ny was that the practice was to designate I ,
lth • fied he had called defendant's building de- the janitor's apartment on the plan.
ere partment and requested a certificate of The,,refore, that admission has been made ,
compliance as to zoning and building re- negative by the testimony of your wit- !
er- quirements of a certain building. A person ness." j
en- at the department told him he would need a The trial court found the 11th apartment
in survey to get the certificate. was not a legal nonconforming use because •
le- An evidence deposition was received by the building permit waifor only 10 apart-
red the court. In the deposition, Folke Gustav- ments and there was an abandonment of i
ing son testified he was 81 years old and had the use of the 11th apartment in 1966. •
ry" moved into the basement apartment in Feb-
of ruary or March 1927. A janitor named Both parties agree two basic questions in
this appeal are: first, whether the use of
ass. Peterson had lived in the apartment before the 11th apartment was legal when estab-
ars him. The 1927 suburban phone book indi- p b
10 cates Folke Gustayson lived in the building. lished; and second, whether the use of this
apartment was abandoned subsequent to its
of Prior to trial, plaintiffs served on defend- establishment. For the sake of clarity, we
lily ant a request for admission of facts pursu- will address the contentions of plaintiffs
ies; ant to Supreme Court Rule 216. (I11.Rev. within the framework of these two basic
the Stat.1979, ch. 110A, par. 216.) Among the �
920 issues.
facts asked to be admitted were: ,
"1.—That the garden apartment unit :
,, it involved in the above cause was built in I. ''
mi- 1925 at the time the building in which it [1] Plaintiffs do not attack the validity i
of is located was built. of the zoning ordinances applicable here. 'i
nit. "2—That the baseboard, electric fix- The 1960 Evanston zoning ordinance .
ans tures, room trim, kitchen and bath defines a "nonconforming use" as "[a] law-
-.2 if plumbing fixtures, medicine cabinet in fully established use of land, buildings,
the bath in the instant apartment (except for structures or premises * * *." Thus, we .
on replacements due to age) are the same must determine first whether the use of the
.uld style and age as the other apartments in 11th apartment was "lawfully established."
nits the building. If the use was illegal at its inception, it
art- "3.—That at the time the building per- "cannot be a nonconforming use" (County
ion, mit was taken out for the building in of Cook v. Triem Steel & Processing, Inc.
.11 a which the instant apartment is located, it (1958), 19 Ill.App.2d 126, 129, 153 N.E.2d
was not customary to count and ask a 277, leave to appeal denied, 15 Ill.2d 613:
mo- permit for the apartment to be furnished see also City of Rockford v. Sallee (1970),
,ing to the building janitor." 129 I11.App.2d 75, 79, 262 N.E.2d 485), and , }
.
•
i�
840 42 ILLINOIS DECISIONS 409 N.E.2d 455 409 N.E.2
cannot be protected from elimination for Plaintiffs contend that by defendant's in this re
violation of present zoning ordinances. failure to timely answer the request for evidence.
[2] The trial court found the 11th or admission of facts, defendant has admitted
basement apartment was built in 1925, at "it was not customary to count and ask a [5,6]
the time the building was erected. The permit for the apartment to be furnished to torn did
uncontroverted deposition of Gustayson in- the building janitor." In this regard, plain- would be
dicates he had lived in the basement apart- tiffs urge it was improper for the trial invokedten
ment in 1927 and a janitor named Peterson court to reject this admission because '
lived there before him. The 1927 phone Schermerhorn's testimony did not contra- prevail a
book shows Gustayson lived in the building. dict the admission. such an
Defendant did not present convincing evi- binding.'
dence to the contrary. Thus, we agree with [3] It is not necessary to pass upon the 331 N.E.
the finding made by the careful trial judge. Propriety of the judge's comments in this We th•
regard. We do not consider any of the apartme
Since the apartment was established three requested admissions quoted above to and thu:
when the building was erected in 1925, the have been admitted. Plaintiffs were aware
1921 zoning ordinance is determinative of their request for admission was not answer-
whether 11-apartment units could have ed in a timely manner. Nevertheless, plain- [7]
been built on the property. As stated tiffs introduced evidence not only as to the 11th ap:
above, according to the 1921 ordinance, a
maximum of 16 units would have been al- custom and practice in the 1920 s, but also tion, it
lowed on this ro rtgiven its size. of the fact of the existence of the 11th whether
P y' apartment when the building was erected. donmen
However, this does not necessarily mean the
use of the 11th apartment was "lawfully This conduct at trial waived plaintiffs' right was leg:
to rely on defendant's admissions. 4 Pio- trial co
+ established." neer Trust and Savings Bank v. County of abandon
The application for a building permit sub- Cook (1978), 71 IIl.2d 510, 518, 17 I11.Dec.
mitted by the original owner was signed by 831, 377 N.E.2d 21. The i
the builder and owner. The application vides (;
provided: [4] As noted previously, the evidence "If a
"The undersigned herewith applies for supported the conclusion the 11th apart- struc
a permit to build a 3 Story, Brick 10 apt ment existed when the building was erect- 120 '
Bldg and hereby agrees upon issuance of ed. However, as for evidence of the custom any
said permit to conform to and comply of not counting the janitor's apartment in struc
• with the conditions of the same and the an application for a permit, at best we can tions
ordinances of the City of Evanston,so far only say the evidence was conflicting. De- or st
as they may apply to any work set forth fendant's witnesses indicated there was no It is
in this application. such custom when there were two apart- buildir
"Same to be located and built in strict ments in the basement or when the building the"11'
accordance with accompanying descrip- was small. Even plaintiffs' own rebuttal also u
tion, plans and specifications, which arewitness, David Rasmussen, refused to say vacant
hereby submitted for your approval." this was a customary practice. "[F]or cus- stipul:
I
The language of this application is clear. tom or usage to be binding it must be time t
I It binds the owner "to conform to and uniform, and so well established as to have confor
comply with the conditions of the [permit] the force of law." (Solomon v. City of becarr
' ' ' " and to build "in strict accord- Evanston (1975), 29 Ill.App.3d 782, 791, 331 Hoy
ance with accompanying description ' '." N.E.2d 380, 387.) The trial court found owner
i A permit was issued pursuant to this appli- there was no such custom. We cannot dis- use of
cation. In our opinion, the application for turb this finding unless it is against the ing ti
building permit, and the permit issued sub- manifest weight of the evidence. (Pioneer roneo
sequent thereto, legally prevented the own- Trust and Savings Bank, 71 I11.2d 510, 516— defen
er from building an 11-unit apartment 17, 17 Ill.Dec. 831, 377 N.E.2d 21.) In our counc
building. opinion, the finding of the able trial judge of th.
L
t ,.c am. - L - •" N, j
i5 409 N.E.2d 456 , WELCH v. CITY OF EVANSTON $dl , ' -
Cite as,App.,42❑I.Dec.335,409 N.E.2d 450
's in this respect is strongly supported by the abandonment or discontinuance of the use
>r evidence. of the 11th apartment. We disagree.
d
[5,6] Furthermore, even if such a cus- As plaintiffs point out, it has been held 1
a
o torn did then exist, plaintiffs' argument that "Mere cessation of use will not, per se, i
1-
would be without merit "[for it has been result in a loss of the right to resume such t
al consistently held that a custom can not be use" and "There still must be an intent by
se invoked to avoid a settled rule or laor to the owner to abandon such nonconforming w.• -
prevail against or overcome a statute and use ' " `." (McCoy v. City of Knoxville i
such an alleged custom is therefore not (1963), 41 Ill.App 2d 378, 384, 190 N.E.2d t
binding." Solomon, 29 III.App.3d 782, 791, 622, 625, leave to appeal denied, 27 I11.2d I'
•e 331 N.E.2d 380, 388. 625, citing Brown v. Gerhardt (1955), 5
I11.2d 106, 125 N.E.2d 53 and People ex rel. �'
is We therefore conclude the use of the 11th t
Delgado v. Morris (1948), 334 Ill.App. 5o 7,
.e ® apartment was not "lawfully established" d i`.'
.o and thus could not be a nonconforming use. 79 N.E.2d 839.) In the instant case, the ,f
.e evidence is manifest the owner intended to 't•
II. abandon the use of the 11th apartment. In
[7] Since it is our opinion the use of the the managing agent's letter to defendant, `:
.e 11th apartment was illegal from its incep- quoted- above, the agent stated they were ;'
,o tion, it becomes unnecessary to examine voluntarily vacating the apartment. The E'
h whether the use continued without aban- intent to abandon is clear. This is not a
I. donment. However, even assuming the use case where a use was unintentionally
1t w7,71:47-al at its inception, we agree with the stopped, such as McCoy, which involved the
)- trial court that this use was subsequently inability of the owner td'find a tenant for
11abandoned. his nonconforming use. (41 II1.App.2d 378,
c• 388, 190 N.E.2d 622.) The abandonment •
The 1960 Evanston zoning ordinance pro- here was in direct response to defendant's
vides (Section XI, E2): ruling. If the owner felt the defendant's •
e "If a nonconforming use of a building or ruling was erroneous, he could have defend-
t- structure is discontinued for a period of ed his right to the use of the apartment in
t- 120 days, it shall not be renewed; and the courts just as plaintiffs are doing in
n any subsequent use of the building or these proceedings. Instead he chose to and 1• I
structure shall conform to the use regula- did effectively abandon the use of the u '
tions of the district in which the buildingp N ; i
n apartment. , •
or structure is located." _
.o It is undisputed the previous owner of the HI. 1 i
t- building vacated and stopped renting out [8] Plaintiffs raise other contentions in ti1
g the 11th apartment sometime in 1966. It is their briefs. However, our reasoning and
31 also undisputed this apartment remained decision that the 11th apartment was not a 5 j
.y vacant for more than the 120-day period legal nonconforming use completely pre- y
s- stipulated in the ordinance as the maximum eludes all but one of these contentions. lI J
le time the use could be discontinued before PLaintiffs argue defendant should be es-
.e conformity to the present use regulations topped from prosecuting this violation be-
)f became necessary. cause defendant did not take steps to elimi-
'1 However, plaintiffs contend the previous nate the illegal apartment until 1977 when
downer had no intention of abandoning the it filed the quasi-criminal complaint herein;
use of the 11th apartment and stopped rent- a gap of almost 52 years from the start of
the illegal use. } '
to ing the apartment only because of the "er- o
'r roneous" denials of a zoning variation by Our supreme court has held that before '
— defendant's Board of Appeals and city the doctrine of equitable estoppel can be
ir council. Plaintiffs thus argue the actions invoked against a city, there must be a _ `
:e of the previous owner did not constitute an showing of "some positive acts by the mu- i !1
42111.Dec.-19 j
i
• 1
0
842 , 42 ILLINOIS DECISIONS 409 N.E.2d 457
nicipal officers which may have induced the tion will not be disturbed absent a show-
action of the adverse party. Mere non- ing of abuse."
action is not enough." (Gregory v. City of In the instant case, the trial court was
Wheaton (1961), 23 Il12d 402, 408, 178 well within sound discretion in denying the
N.E.2d 358, 361; see also City of Rockford, motion. These affidavits add no new ele-
129 Ill.App.2d 75, 81, 262 N.E.2d 485.) In ment to the facts brought out at trial.
the instant case, there is no showing of While the affiants may not have abandoned
positive action by any of defendant's off i- the previous owner's claim the apartment
cials which may have induced plaintiffs or was a nonconforming use, as shown above
any previous owner to maintain the 11th affiants' predecessors did in fact abandon
apartment. In fact, the decisions of de- the use of the apartment for three years.
fendant's Board of Appeals and city council
in 1966 denying a variance and the subse- For the reasons stated, the judgment of
quent certificates of inspection which spe- the circuit court is affirmed.
cifically state only 10-apartment units are Judgment affirmed.
allowed with "one dwelling unit below the
' second floor" indicate defendant did not O'CONNOR and CAMPBELL, JJ., con-
approve of an 11th apartment. Apparently, cur.
defendant did not notice a violation until
Nehring's inspections in October 1976.
• Shortly thereafter, defendant filed the qua- o S dE...*_RSYSTEM
si-criminal complaint. Thus, the doctrine of T
i equitable estoppel is inapplicable here. ;
1
i
IV. 87 I11.App.3d 1123
[9] Plaintiffs filed a motion for new tri-
409 N.E.2d 457
al with which they submitted affidavits of Alvano VALDIVIA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
the previous owner and managing agent of v.
the building. Ross Welch stated in his own
affidavit he was unable to produce these The CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN
1 TRANSPORTATION COMPANY et al.,
witnesses at trial because one was seriously
ill and the other could not be located. Defendants-Appellees.
These affiants stated they never gave up or No. 79-2066.
I abandoned the owner's claim that the 11th Appellate Court of Illinois,
apartment was legal in all respects. The First District, First Division.
affiants further stated the apartment was
kept vacant for about three years after the Aug. 25, 1980.
agent wrote the letter to defendant in 1966.
The trial court denied the motion. Plain- Plaintiff who was injured in fall while
tiffs contend this is newly discovered evi- sandblasting a railroad overpass structure
dence concerning intent to abandon the filed multicount complaint against' numer-
nonconforming use so that the trial court ous corporations including railroad compa-
should have granted the motion for new ny. After plaintiff who was ordered to
trial. appear for deposition on certain date failed i
This court has held (McCullough v. to appear, the Circuit Court, Cook County,
McTavish(1978),62 I1l.App.3d 1041, 1047,20 Paul F. Elward, P. J., dismissed complaint
IIl.Dec. 57, 62, 379 N.E.2d 890, 895): with prejudice, denied motion to vacate or-
"Granting or denying a motion for a der of dismissal, and plaintiff appealed.
new trial on the basis of newly discovered The Appellate Court, O'Connor,J., held that
evidence lies within the discretion of the under circumstances wherein because of
trial court and its exercise of that discre- language barrier created by plaintiff's ina-
f
0
gp I !,
267 MUNICIPALITIES 65 ILCS 5/11-13-15
public hearing—other than a public hearing provided for in "Administrative Review Law", as now or hereafter amend-
Section 11-13-2—required to be held under this Division 13 ed.' ,
in connection with applications for any special use,variation, (D) The corporate authorities of the municipality may I
amendment or other change or modification in any ordinance provide general or specific rules implementing but not incon-
of the municipality adopted pursuant to this Division 13; and sistent with the provisions of this Section, including rules
(ii) hear and decide appeals from and review any order, relative to the time and manner in which hearing officers are
requirement, decision or determination made by an adminis- designated to conduct public hearings and rules governing
trative official charged with the enforcement of any ordi- the manner in which such hearings are conducted and mat-
nance adopted pursuant to this Division 13. ters heard therein passed upon and determined.
(B) When a hearing officer is designated to conduct a (E) Hearing officers shall be appointed on the basis of
public hearing in a matter otherwise required to be heard in training and experience which qualifies them to conduct
accordance with this Division 13 by some commission or hearings, make recommendations or findings of fact and
committee designated by the corporate authorities of the conclusions on the matters heard and otherwise exercise and
municipality: (i) notice of such hearing shall be given in the perform the powers, duties and functions delegated in actor- .
same time and manner as is provided by this Division 13 for dance with this Section. Hearing officers shall receive such.
the giving of notice of hearing when any such matter is to be compensation as the corporate authorities of the municipality
heard by some commission or committee designated by the shall provide, and any municipality may establish a schedule
corporate authorities; (ii) the hearing officer shall exercise of fees to defray the costs of providing a hearing officer.
and perform the same powers and duties as such commission (F) This Section is intended to furnish an alternative or • I
or committee is required to exercise and perform when supplemental procedure which a municipality in its discretion
conducting a public hearing in any such matter; and (iii) the may provide for hearing, determining, reviewing and decid-
hearing officer shall render a written recommendation to the ing matters which arise under any ordinance adopted by the
corporate authorities within such time and in such manner municipality pursuant to this Division 13, but nothing in this f
and form as the corporate authorities shall require. Section shall"be deemed to limit or prevent the use of any
(C) When a hearing officer is designated to conduct a existing procedure available to a municipality under this
public hearing in a matter otherwise required to be heard in Division 1$for hearing,approving or denying applications for
accordance with this Division 13 by the board of appeals, or a special use, variation, amendment or other change or
when a hearing officer is designated to hear and decide modification of any such ordinance,or for hearing and decid- 1 E
appeals from and review any order,requirement,decision or ing appeals from and reviewing any order, requirement, I
determination made by an administrative official charged decision or determination made by an administrative official
with the enforcement of any ordinance adopted pursuant to charged with the enforcement of any such ordinance. •
this Division 13: (i) notice of hearing shall be given in the Laws 1961, p. 576, § 11-13-144 added by PA.84-960, § 1,
same time and manner as is provided by this Division 13 for eff. Sept. 25, 1985. •
the giving of notice of hearing when any such matter is to be Formerly Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 24, 911-13-14.1. •I
de
heard by the board of appeals; (ii) the hearing officer in 1735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq.
passing upon and determining any matter otherwise within .
the jurisdiction of the board of appeals shall be governed by 5/11-13-15. Proceedings to prevent violation ! 'i
all of the standards, rules and conditions imposed by this § 11-13-15. In case any building or structure, including ; f
Division 13 to govern the board of appeals when it passes fixtures, is constructed,reconstructed,altered,repaired,con- ) ;
upon and determines any such matter; and (iii) the hearing verted, or maintained,or any building or structure,including
officer shall exercise and perform all of the powers and
fixtures, or land, is used in violation of an ordinance or ;1
duties of the board of appeals in the same manner and to the ordinances adopted under Division 13, 31 or 31.1 of the }
same effect as provided in this Division 13 with respect to the Illinois Municipal Code,'or of any ordinance or other regula-
board of appeals, provided that: tion made under the authority conferred thereby,the proper
1. When the hearing officer is passing upon an applica- local authorities of the municipality, or any owner or tenant
tion for variation or special use and the power to determine of real property, within 1200 feet in any direction of the ;
and approve such variation or special use is reserved to the property on which the building or structure in question is
corporate authorities,then upon report of the hearing officer located who shows that his property or person will be
the corporate authorities may by ordinance without further substantially affected by the alleged violation, in addition to •
public hearing adopt any proposed variation or special use or other remedies, may institute any appropriate action or
may refer it back to the hearing officer for further consider- proceeding (1) to prevent the unlawful construction, recon-
ation,and any proposed variation or special use which fails to struction, alteration,repair, conversion,maintenance, or use,
receive the approval of the hearing officer shall not be passed (2) to prevent the occupancy of the building, structure, or •
except by the favorable vote of S of all aldermen or trustees land, (3) to prevent any illegal act, conduct, business, or use •
of the municipality; in or about the premises, or(4) to restrain,correct, or abate
2. When the hearing officer is passing upon an applica- the violation. When any such action is instituted by an •
tion for variation or special use and the power to determine owner or tenant, notice of such action shall be served upon
and approve such variation or special use is not reserved to the municipality at the time suit is begun,by serving a copy
the corporate authorities, or when the hearing officer is of the complaint on the chief executive officer of the munici-
hearing and deciding appeals from or reviewing any order, pality, no such action may be maintained until such notice
requirement, decision or determination made by an adminis- has been given.
trative official charged with the enforcement of any ordi- In any action or proceeding for a purpose mentioned in
nance adopted pursuant to this Division 13, the determina- this section, the court with jurisdiction of such action or
tion made by the hearing officer with respect to any such proceeding has the power and in its discretion may issue a
matter shall constitute a final administrative decision which restraining order, or a preliminary injunction, as well as a
is subject to judicial review pursuant to the provisions of the permanent injunction, upon such terms and under such con-
e •
1
; 4
.,
65 ILCS 5/11-13-15 MUNICIPALITIES 268
ditions as will do justice and enforce the purposes set forth Formerly Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch.24, 9 11-13-18.
above.
If an owner or tenant files suit hereunder and the court 5/11-13-19. Official zoning map—Publication
finds that the defendant has engaged in any of the foregoing
prohibited activities,then the court shall allow the plaintiff a § 11-13-19. Except as otherwise provided in this section,
reasonable sum of money for the services of the plaintiff's the corporate authorities shall cause to be published no later
attorney. This allowance shall be a part of the costs of the than March 31 of each year a map clearly showing the
litigation assessed against the defendant, and may be recov- existing zoning uses, divisions, restrictions, regulations and
ered as such. classifications of such municipality for the preceding calendar
year. The first map published in 1960 shall reflect all zoning
An owner or tenant need not prove any specific,special or
unique damages to himself or his property or any adverse uses, divisions, restrictions, regulations and classifications in
effect upon his property from the alleged violation in order to effect on and prior to December 31,1959. If in any calendar
maintain a suit under the foregoing provisions. year after the first map is published there are no changes in
Laws 1961, p. 576, § 11-13-15, eff. July 1, 1961. Amended zoning uses, divisions,restrictions, regulations and classifica-
by PA.76-585, § 1,eff.July 31, 1969; P.A.80-419,§ 1, eff. tions in such municipality,no map shall be published for such
Oct. 1, 1977. calendar year.
Formerly Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 24, 9 11-13-15. The map published by the corporate authorities shall be
165 ILCS 5/11-13-1 et seq.,5/11-31-1 et seq.or 5/11-31.1-1 et seq. the official zoning map. The corporate authorities may
establish a fee to be charged any.person desiring a copy..of
5/11-13-16. Existing zoning ordinances, such map. Such fee shall be paid to the appropriate zoning
regulations, and acts thereunder officer and-Shall be applied to defray the cost of publication
§ 11-13-16. All zoning ordinances and regulations of the official map.
adopted prior to January 1,1942,by any municipality pursu- Laws 1961, p. 576, § 11-13-19, eff. July 1, 1961. Amended
ant to the provisions of"An Act to confer certain additional by Laws 1963, p. 3136, § 1, eff.Aug. 19, 1963.
powers upon city councils in cities and presidents and boards y
Formerl Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch.24, 911-13-19.
of trustees in villages and incorporated towns concerning
buildings and structures,the intensity of use of lot areas,the
classification of trades, industries, buildings, and structures, 5/11-13-20. Hearings—Appearance and
with respect to location and regulation, the creation of dis- presentati n of evidence by school
tricts of different classes, the establishment of regulations district
and restrictions applicable thereto, the establishment of
boards of appeals and the review of the decisions of such § 11-13-20. In any hearing before a zoning commission,
boards by the court", approved June 28, 1921, as amended, board of appeals, or commission or committee designated
and all committees, commissions, boards, and officers desig- pursuant to Section 11-13-14, any school district within
nated or appointed by any municipality pursuant to the which the property in issue, or any part thereof, is located
provisions of that Act, or pursuant to the provisions of any shall have the right to appear and present evidence.
ordinance or regulations adopted under that Act, shall be
recognized, considered, and treated as having been properly Laws 1961,p.576, § 11-13-20,added by Laws 1963,p.v1`59,
adopted, designated, established, or appointed under this § 1, eff. Aug. 5, 1963.
Division 13. Formerly Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 24, 911-13-20.
Laws 1961, p. 576, § 11-13-16, eff. July 1, 1961.
Formerly Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 24, 911-13-16. DIVISION 14. SET-BACK LINES
5/11-13-17. Substandard structures—Eminent Section
domain 5/11-14-1. Establishment.
§ 11-13-17. In addition to all rights and powers con- 5/11-14-2. Enforcing officers.
ferred by this Division 13, the corporate authorities in each 5/11-14-3. Amendment of regulations.
municipality may acquire by purchase, condemnation or oth- 5/11-14-4. Action to restrain violation.
erwise any buildings or structures which do not conform to
the standards fixed by the corporate authorities pursuant to 5/11-14-1. Establishment
Section 11-13-1,and all land which is necessary or appropri-
ate for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of any area § 11-14-1. In addition to existing powers and to the end
blighted by substandard buildings or structures; may re that adequate light, pure air, or safety may be secured and
move or demolish all substandard buildings and structures so that congestion of public streets may be lessened or avoided,
acquired; may hold and use any remaining property for the corporate authorities in each municipality have power by
public purposes; and may sell,lease or exchange such prop- ordinance to establish,regulate,and limit the building or set-
erty as is not required for public purposes, subject to the back lines on or along any street, traffic way, drive, or
provisions of the existing zoning ordinance. parkway or storm or floodwater runoff channel within the
Laws 1961, p. 576, § 11-13-17, eff. July 1, 1961. municipality, as may be deemed best suited to carry out
Formerly Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 24, 9 11-13-17. these purposes. The powers given by this Division 14 shall
not be exercised so as to deprive the owner of any existing
5/11-13-18. Testimony at hearings property of its use or maintenance for the purpose to which
§ 11-13-18. All testimony by witnesses in any hearing it is then lawfully devoted.
provided for in this Division 13 shall be given under oath. Laws 1961, p. 576, § 11-14-1, eff. July 1, 1961.
Laws 1961, p. 576, § 11-13-18, eff. July 1, 1961. Formerly Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 24, 9 11-14-1.
•
El 14.jll
�� _`-=� Memorandum
o,
July 11, 1996
TO: Illegal Nonconforming Residential Uses
Task Force Members
FROM: Erwin J. Jentsch, Corporation CounselC /?
Clay J. Pearson, Director of Code Administration an
Neighborhood Affairs
SUBJECT: First Meeting Announcement
The Task Force ' s first meeting is scheduled for next Thurs-
day, July 18, at 1 : 30 p.m. in the City Manager ' s Conference
Room. Please find attached additional information for your
review:
* Agenda for meeting.
* Updated list of illegal residential uses .
* Sections of adopted BOCA Property Maintenance Code
pertaining to definition of a dwelling unit .
* History of required off-street parking.
* Letter from Elgin Township Assessor, dated July 2 ,
1996, regarding township use records .
* Letter from Elgin Township Assessor, dated June 21,
1996 regarding valuation of property in Elgin Town-
ship.
* Memorandum from City of Elgin Permit Control Offi-
cer regarding electrical services/Commonwealth
Edison.
We look forward to working with you next week.
CJP/sm
c: Richard B . Helwig, City, }M nager
Loni Mecum, City Clerk V
Agenda
Illegal Residential Uses Task Force
Thursday, July 18
1 : 30 p.m.
City Manager ' s Conference Room, 150 Dexter Court
A. Roll Call
B. Election of presiding members .
C. Election of Secretary.
D. Report on current status and types of illegal nonconform-
ing uses .
E . Description of current ordinance.
F. Discussion of possible ordinance amendments .
G. Next meeting date.
H. Adjournment.
CITY OF ELGIN--ILLEGAL UNITS REPORT
ADDRESS Number Lawful Current Cony Lot Permit Ext Owner Cont Twp Yr Twp
#Units #Units Year Area Issued Rat Occ? SF? Use Use Est'd
ADAMS ST 312 4 5 1969 7,225 2 Y Y 2 1958 •
ADDISON ST 441 4 5 1969 8,704 067 2 5 1972
ALGONA AVE 370 2 4 1946 8,504 1 4 1972
ANN ST 209 1 2 1976 2,310 1 Y 1 1958
ASHLAND AVE 515 1 _ 2 1981 7,975 041 2 Y 2 1967
AUGUSTA AVE 805 1 2 1948 8,712 1 Y Y 2 1979
AUGUSTA AVE 843 1 2 1941 8,712 B40 1 Y Y 1 1978
AUGUSTA ST 839 1 2 1971 8,712 2 Y Y 2 1978
BALL ST 330 1 2 1972 4,293 1 Y 2 1994
BALL ST 410 1 2 1937 6,468 1 1 1958
BARRETT ST 483 1 2 1988 4,400 1 Y 2 1967
BARTLETT PL 269 1 2 1989 2,669 E84 3 Y 2 1979
BENT ST 358 2 3 1982 6,800 E91 2 2 1990
BIRD ST 523 2 3 1976 8,160 2 Y 2
BLUFF CITY BLVD 664 1 3 _ 1995 7,410 B92 1 Y 1 1958
BODE RD 700 6 8 1988 19,951 E72 1
BOOTH CT 364/365 4 6 1979 22,609 051 3 2
BOWEN CT 420 1 2 1939 5,099 1 Y 1
BROOK ST 465 1 2 1954 8,712 B85 1 Y 2 1985
BROOK ST 500 2 3 1995 7,623 B68 2 3 1968
BROOK ST 628 2 3 1971 9,825 E40 2 Y 2 1972
BROOK ST 629 1 2 1993 10,890 E93 2 Y 1 1958
BROOK ST 712 1 2 1959 11,361 1 Y 2 1972
CENTER ST 1029/1031 2 3 1939 7,276 E82 2 Y 3 1972
CENTER ST 255 2 4 1991 2,904 2 Y 4 1958
CENTER ST 415 1 2 1986 8,712 1 2 1979
CHANNING STN 152 2 3 1992 8,026 060 1 Y 3 1972
CHANNING ST S 15/17 4 5 1993 7,200 E93 2 4 1978
CHANNING STS 222 1 2 1992 10,890 H92 1 Y 1 1958
CHAPEL STN 22 2 3 1981 8,580 B41 1 Y 2 1958
CHERRY ST 114 3 4 1989 8,712 E55 2 3 1972
CHERRY ST 210 2 3 1981 7,920 2 Y 2 1972
CHICAGO ST E 317 7 8 1983 4,356 E38 1 8 1972
CHICAGO ST E 327 1 2 1986 3,486 2 Y 2 1972
CHICAGO ST E 376 5 6 _ 1973 14,520 E44 2 5 1967
CHICAGO ST E 431 3 4 1978 6,600 E48 1 Y 3 1972
CHICAGO ST E 492 3 4 1983 8,831 3 3 1972
CHICAGO ST E 532 2 3 1977 5,876 2 2 1972
CHICAGO ST E 680 1 2 1986 15,307 2 2 1972
CHICAGO ST E 900 1 2 1981 58,625 E53 3 2
CHICAGO ST W 321/323 3 4 1986 7,128 E45 2 2
CLARK ST 512 1 2 1987 7,709 1 Y 2 1979
07/11/96 Page 1
CITY OF ELGIN--ILLEGAL UNITS REPORT
ADDRESS Number Lawful Current Cony Lot Permit Ext Owner Cont Twp Yr Twp
#Units #Units Year Area issued Rat Occ? SF? Use Use Est'd
CLEVELAND AVE 456 1 2 1939 7,590 _ N Y 1 •
COLLEGE ST 213 2 3 1992 3,317 2 Y 2 1972
COMMONWEALTH AVE S 168 1 2 1937 6,389 027 1 Y Y 2 1978
COOKANE AVE 862 _ 1 2 _ 1958 8,774 _ 2 Y 2 1979
COOPER AVE 610 1 2 1972 6,379 2 Y Y 2 1972
CRYSTAL AVE N 52 5 7 1945 8,712 E42 1 7 1972
CRYSTAL AVE N 361 1 2 1987 32,430 1 2
DANIELS AVE 21 2 3 1973 _ 2,880 E56 3 3 1978
DOUGLAS AVE 258 1 2 1989 12,072 1 Y 1 1958
DOUGLAS AVE 714 1 2 1991 7,161 1 Y Y 2 1993
DUBOIS AVE N 155 1 2 1984 3,859 E84 2 Y 2 1972
DUBOIS AVE N 156 1 2 1982 6,682 E85 1 Y Y 2 1980
DUNDEE AVE 304 2 3 1921 5,206 3 3 1967
DUNDEE AVE 320/322 2 4 2,248 2 2 1958
DUPAGE ST 315/317 5 6 1933 8,712 2 5 1958
DUPAGE ST 427 1 2 8,768 _ 1 2 1988
DUPAGE ST 433 4 5 1974 8,580 B39 2 4 1972
DWIGHT ST 307 2 3 _ 1939 5,447 2 Y 2 1972
DWIGHT ST 414 _ 1 2 1989 8,712 1 Y 1 1958
FRANKLIN ST 274 1 2 1970 3,564 2 Y 2 1979
FRANKLIN ST 438 2 4 1971 9,108 E47 1 2 1995
GENEVA STN 15/17 5 6 1966 5,412 E86 2 6 1958
GETZELMAN AVE 1274 8 9 1977 10,100 076 2 9 1969
GETZELMAN AVE 1350 8 9 1975 14,375 040 2 9 1978
GIFFORD PL 285 1 2 1988 3,267 E39 2 2 1972
GIFFORD STN 270 2 _ 4 1983 3,213 1 2 1972
GIFFORD STN 310 1 2 1974 8,184 2 Y 2 1972
GIFFORD STN 416 2 3 1962 5,576 2 2 1978
GOETHE ST 826 1 2 1986 16,112 1 Y 2 1992
GRISWOLD ST 375 1 2 1939 9,042 2 Y 2 1967
HARDING ST 165 1 2 1975 2,460 2 Y 2 1979
HENDEE ST 448/450 2 3 1968 7,535 2 4 1972
HENDEE ST 516 1 2 1950 7,975 2 Y 2 1967
HIGHLAND AVE W 501/503 1 4 1951 _ 11,407 1 4 1972
HIGHLAND AVE W 628 2 3 1984 19,434 1 Y 2 1994
HIGHLAND AVE W_ 717/719 105 106 1962 6,062 1 105 1958
HIGHLAND AVE W 788 _ 1 2 1959 7,669 3 Y 2 1991
HIGHLAND AVE W 1218 1 2 1979 6,996 059 1 Y Y 1 1958
HIGHLAND AVE W 1254 1 2 1960 6,996 3 Y Y 2 1967
HILL AVE 22/24 3 4 1984 9,108 B63 2 4 1967
HILL AVE 133 1 2 1993 9,108 2 Y 1 1958
HILL AVE 252 1 2 1990 7,623 1 Y 1 1992
07/11/96 Page 2
CITY OF ELGIN--ILLEGAL UNITS REPORT
ADDRESS Number Lawful Current Cony Lot Permit Ext Owner Cont Twp Yr Twp
#Units #Units Year Area Issued Rat Occ? SF? Use Use Est'd
ILLINOIS AVE 319 2 3 1994 166,352 2 2 1972 .
ILLINOIS AVE 333 2 3 1973 147,319 _ E56 2 2 1972
ILLINOIS AVE 801 1 3 1937 5,607 2 Y 3 1972
ILLINOIS AVE 925 1 2 1974 7,860 2 Y 2 1972
JACKSON STS 52 1 2 1969 4,356 2 Y 2 1958
JEFFERSON AVE 29 1 2 1971 2,880 2 2 1970
JEFFERSON AVE 365 2 3 1955 9,480 E55 1 3 1972
JEFFERSON AVE 371 1 2 1992 7,440 058 Y 1
JEFFERSON AVE 427 2 3 8,378 E85 3 2 1972
JEWETT ST 403 1 2 1959 4,676 1 Y 2 1972
KEEP AVE 657 1 2 1994 7,366 E94 1 Y 2 1972
KIMBALL ST 316 1 3 1968 9,587 1 Y 2 1979
LARKIN AVE 815 2 3 1983 6,125 2 Y 2 1972
LARKIN AVE 920 2 3 1986 5,676 E86 2 Y 3 1958
LARKIN AVE 1965 1 2 1991 15,591 2 1 1967
LEONARD ST 54 1 2 1986 3,206 2 2 1972
LIBERTY STN 120 1 2 1976 8,613 1 Y 1 1958
LIBERTY STS 55 2 3 1974 25,155 E48 1 Y 3 1972
LIBERTY STS 150 2 3 1929 5,544 2 2 1972
LIBERTY ST S 156 1 2 1992 3,696 3 2 1972
LIBERTY STS 384 1 2 1995 4,207 1 Y 1 1958
LIBERTY STS 472 1 2 1994 6,573 2 Y 2 1972
LIBERTY STS 511 1 2 1974 7,508 E74 2 Y 1 1958
LILAC LN 301/311 11 12 1990 33,888 B90 1(2) 11
LILAC LN 312 4 5 1978 10,125 068 1 5 1986
LILLIE ST 564 1 2 1973 6,600 1 Y 1 1958
LOCUST AVE 565 1 2 1993 3,598 1 1 1985
LOCUST ST 318 2 3 1941 6,305 2 _ Y 3 1992
LOCUST ST 466 1 2 1958 10,883 058 2 2 1972
LOGAN AVE 921 1 2 1917 9,064 2 Y 2 1978
LOVELL ST 259 1 2 1969 7,028 060 1 Y 1 1958
LUDEKA PL 110 1 2 1959 8,712 1 Y 2 1978
LYNCH ST 30 1 2 1987 5,808 059 2 Y 2 1978
MARGUERITE ST 309 1 2 1939 8,712 1 Y Y 2 1967
MAY ST 365 1 2 1988 8,507 E88 2 Y 1 1987
MCCLURE AVE 321 2 5 1974 9,912 E53 1 Y 5 1984
MCCLURE AVE 520 1 3 1939 8,712 2 Y 2 1972
MEYER ST 1621 6 8 1981 10,480 2 6 1969
MICHIGAN ST 256 2 5 1950 3,490 3 5 1972
MILL ST 603 2 3 1972 6,098 E72 1 Y 2 1972
MORGAN ST 276 1 2 1927 8,712 1 2 1972
MORGAN ST 425 1 2 1941 7,375 E65 2 Y Y 1 1958
07/11/96 Page 3
CITY OF ELGIN--ILLEGAL UNITS REPORT
ADDRESS Number Lawful_ Current Cony _ Lot Permit Ext Owner Cont Twp Yr Twp
#Units #Units Year Area Issued Rat Occ? SF? Use Use Est'd
MORTON AVE 1155 1 2 1937 6,534 2 Y 2 1958 •
MOSELEY ST 344 1 2 1940 _ 7,729 1 Y Y 2 1972 ,
MOSELEY ST 355 1 2 1965 8,093 1 Y Y 2 1972
MOSELEY ST 360 1 2 1967 7,260 1 Y 1 1958
MOSELEY ST 364 1 2 1941 _ 11,220 E87 2 Y Y 2 1967
MOUNTAIN ST 315 1 3 1928 _ 18,018 1 3 1958
NATIONAL ST 20 1 2 1977 5,448 E77 2 Y 2 1979
NATIONAL ST 262 0 _ 1 1961 10,755 2 1
NORTH ST 312 2 3 1995 _ 4,221 E85 2 _ 2 1967
NORTH ST 372 _ 2 3 1980 4,554 E88 3 3 1972
OAK ST 452/454 1 2 1928 8,874 1 _ Y 2 1967
OAK ST 831 1 2 1939 _ 5,410 1 _ Y Y 2 1979
ORCHARD ST 315 1 2 1943 10,890 1 Y Y 1 1958
PARK ST 384 2 3 1989 _ 8,045 E64 2 2 1958
PARK ST 398 1 2 1948 6,400 2 1 1958
PARK ST 482 3 4 1979 _ 11,180 E53 2 3 1972
PERCY ST 265 2 4 _ 1950 5,212 _ 2 4 1967
PERCY ST 306 4 5 1986 _ 6,048 1 5 1958
PLUM CT 392 1 2 1981 6,957 2 1 1958
_
PLUM ST 327 1 2 1993 _ 8,712 B93 2 Y 1 1987
PORTER STN 134 1 2 1939 _ 8,712 1 Y 2 1972
PORTER STS 29 2 3 1977 5,865 2 2 1972
1
PRAIRIE ST _ 427 1 2 1974 5,280 2 Y 2 1958
PRESTON AVE _ 857 1 3 1981 _ 4,072 _ 2 Y Y 1 1958
PRESTON AVE _ 1158 1 2 1925 8,290 2 Y 2 1972
PROSPECT BLVD 605 1 3 1979 8,185 2 Y 3 1972
RAYMOND ST 412 1 2 1974 6,775 2 1 1958
RAYMOND ST 682 1 2 1995 5,400 2 _ Y 2 1972
RAYMOND ST _ 703 2 3 1956 17,424 1 3 1972
RUGBY PL 24 4 5 1984 8,184 060 1 5 1972
RUSSELL ST _ 429 1 _ 2 1993 8,250 E93 2 Y 1 1958
RYERSON AVE _ 360 1 2 1992 4,620 058 1 Y 2 1972
RYERSON AVE _ 436 1 2 1983 7,920 1 2 1972
SHERMAN AVE 400 1 2 1923 4,640 2 , 2 1958
SHERMAN AVE _ 432 2 3 _ 1968 26,136 2 3 1972
SOUTH ST _ 304 5 6 _ 1971 3,300 E87 92 1 5 1958
SOUTH ST 311 3 4 _ 1973 5,591 E68 1 4 1972
SOUTH ST 429 1 _ 2 1959 17,915 1 Y 2 1958
SOUTH ST 444 4 5 1985 16,533 B85 1 4 1978
SOUTH ST 509 3 4 1974 8,712 E54 2 3 1972
SOUTH ST 656/658 3 4 1994_ 15,409 2 Y 3 1972
SOUTH ST 840 1 2 1969 11,682 _ 2 Y 2 1972
07/11/96 Page 4
CITY OF ELGIN--ILLEGAL UNITS REPORT
ADDRESS Number Lawful Current Cony Lot Permit Ext Owner Cont Twp Yr Twp
#Units #Units Year Area Issued Rat Occ? SF? Use Use Est'd
SPRING STN 255 7 8 1988 10,890 2 9 1985 •
SPRING STN 279 2 4 1943 4,356 B81 2 4 1972
SPRING STN 420 1 2 1986 7,848 1 Y 2 1967
SPRING STN 617 1 2 1986 8,712 E39 2 Y 1 1996
SPRING STN 625 1 2 1982 8,712 E82 1 Y 2 1972
STATE STS 370 1 2 1927 10,890 1 2 1958
STATE STS 576 2 5 1977 42,141 B77 1 2 1972
ST CHARLES ST 343 2 4 1968 12,282 2 2 1958
ST CHARLES ST 951 2 3 1951 9,850 049 1 Y 2 1993
ST CHARLES ST 989 1 2 1965 8,712 E56 2 1
ST CHARLES ST 1005 1 2 1929 2 2 1940
STELLA CT 540 1 2 1988 6,596 2 ' 1 1976
SURRY CT 52 5 6 1967 11,250 B66 1 5 1972
VANDALIA ST 317 1 2 _ 1937 8,712 B41 1 Y Y 2 1967
VANDALIA ST 325/327 1 2 1939 8,712 1 Y 2 1958
VERNON DR 2183 16 18 1981 10,787 B69 1 18 1969
VILLA ST 224/226 1 3 1976 5,940 E44 2 4 1972
VILLA ST 274 1 2 1993 8,168 B93 2 Y 2 1972
VILLA ST 278 2 3 1978 6,534 2 2 1972
VILLA ST 288 5 8 1969 8,316 P58 1 8 1972
VILLA ST 296 2 3 1973 5,268 1 2 1972
VILLA ST 420 1 2 1986 8,712 1 Y 2 1972
VILLA ST 535 2 3 1993 6,532 1 Y Comm
VILLA ST 611 2 4 1991 12,000 1 Y 2 1958
VILLA ST 643 2 3 1989 4,973 E80 1 Y 4 1989
VILLA ST 708 2 3 1984 8,804 E46 1 2 1982
VILLA ST 719 1 2 1980 3,878 E87 1 1 1988
WALNUT AVE 424 3 4 1985 7,843 2 4 1958
WALNUT AVE 576 2 3 1977 7,759 E54 1 Y 3 1972
WALNUT AVE 615 2 3 1974 21,780 E31 65 2 Y 2 1979
WALNUT AVE 825 1 3 _ 1975 8,712 1 3
WASHBURN ST 117 2 3 1993 2,178 E82 1 2 1967
WASHBURN ST 455 1 2 1986 8,250 E86 1 Y 2 1967
WASHINGTON AVE 320 1 2 _ 1923 8,712 2 Y 2 1972
WASHINGTON AVE 426 _ 2 3 1974 12,342 2 2 1958
WATCH ST 270 1 2 1977 2,644 2 2 1972
WATRES PL 330 1 2 1985 5,000 1 Y 3 1990
WELLINGTON AVE 391 1 _ 2 1971 5,808 1 Y 1 1958
WELLINGTON AVE 502 1 2 1970 13,914 2 Y 2 1979
WELLINGTON AVE 523 2 3 1977 9,270 E77 1 2 1972
WELLINGTON AVE 600 1 2 1985 19,140 1 1 1958
WELLINGTON AVE 607 1 2 1921 4,307 3 Y 2 1972
07/11/96 Page 5
CITY OF ELGIN--ILLEGAL UNITS REPORT
ADDRESS Number Lawful Current Cony Lot Permit Ext Owner Cont Twp Yr Twp
#Units #Units Year Area issued Rat Occ? SF? Use Use Est'd
WILCOX AVE 346 1 2 1991 8,712 1 Y 1 1958 •
WILCOX AVE 403 1 2 1984 7,772 E84 1 Y Y 1 1958
WOODVIEW DR 11 0 1 1971 264,804 B68 1 _
WRIGHT AVE 610 2 3 1981 7,838 2 1
YARWOOD ST 366 1 2 1941 7,083 1 Y 2 1958
YARWOOD ST 370 1 2 1915 5912 E59 1 Y 2
ABANDONED DWELLINGS _ _
LAUREL ST 493 1 2 1958 5,412 E58 1 2
RAYMOND ST 354 1 3 1996 8,375 E28 1 2 1958
STATE STN 15 0 8 1994 1,320 079 1
VILLA ST 271 1 4 1990 14,005 E70 2 4 1958
BREAKDOWN OF 1= 102 DWELLINGS
EXTERIOR RATINGS 2= 105 DWELLINGS
3= 13 DWELLINGS
4= 0 DWELLINGS
07/11/96 Page 6
LEGEND FOR ILLEGAL UNITS REPORT
ADDRESS Street
NUMBER Street Number
LAWFUL# UNITS Number of lawful dwelling units recognized by the city
CURRENT# UNITS Number of dwelling units currently on site
CONV DATE Estimated date the illegal unit(s) was/were added
LOT AREA Square footage of the lot
PERMIT ISSUED Permits issued by the city which verifies the legal
number of units, followed by year issued:
O=Occupancy permit
B=Building permit
E=Electrical permit
H=Heating permit
P=Plumbing permit
EXT RAT Rating of the exterior condition of the property by property maintenance staff:
1=No Violations
4=Major Violations
OWNER OCC Owner occupied property:
Y=Yes, N=No
CONT SF Y=Property has been continuously zoned single family since 1928
TWP USE Number of units as assessed by the township tax assessor
YR TWP USE EST'D Year the township tax assessor began assessing as stated in the TWP USE column
07/11/96
THE BOCA NATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE/1990
and enforcement of this code, or any duly authorize
representative
Condemn: To adjudge unfit for use or occupancy.
Dwellings: (See Section PM-200 .5 )
Rooming house: A building arranged or used for lodging, with or
without meals, for compensation and not occupied as a one-family
dwelling or a two-family dwelling.
Multiple family dwelling: A building containing more than two
dwelling units and not classified as a one- or two-family
dwelling.
Rooming unit: Any room or group of rooms forming a single
habitable unit used or intended to be used for sleeping and/or
living, but not for cooking purposes .
Dormitory: A space in a building where group sleeping
accommodations are provided in one room, or in a series of
closely associated rooms, for persons not members of the same
family group.
Hotel: Any building containing six or more guest rooms, intended
or designed to be used, or which are used, rented or hired out
to be occupied, or which are occupied for sleeping purposes by
guests .
�t One-family dwelling: A building containing one dwelling unit
with not more that two lodgers or boarders .
Two-family dwelling: A building containing two dwelling unit.
with not more than two lodgers or boarders per family.
c Dwelling unit: A single unit providing complete, independent
living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent
provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.
Exterior property: The open space on the premises and on adjoining
property under the control of owners or operators of such
premises .
Extermination: The control and elimination of insects, rats or other
pests by eliminating their harborage places; by removing or
making inaccessible materials that serve as their food; by
poison spraying, fumigating, trapping or by any other approved
pest elimination methods .
-4 Family: An individual or married couple and the children thereof with
not more than two (2) other persons related directly to the
individual or married couple by blood or marriage; or a group of
not more than three ( 3) unrelated persons, living together as a
single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.
Garbage: The animal and vegetable waste resulting from the handling,
preparation, cooking and consumption of food.
15
THE BOCA NATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE/1990
illr
Habitable space: Space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating,
or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls,
storage or utility spaces, and similar areas are not considered
habitable spaces .
Infestation: The presence, within or contiguous to, a structure or
premises of insects, rats, vermin or other pests .
Let for occupancy or let: To permit possession or occupancy of a
dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, building or structure by
a person who shall be legal owner or not be the legal owner of
record thereof, pursuant to a written or unwritten lease,
agreement or license, or pursuant to a recorded or unrecorded
agreement of contract for the sale of land.
Occupant: Any person living or sleeping in a building; or having
possession of a space within a building.
Openable area: That part of a window or door which is available for
unobstructed ventilation and which opens directly to the
outdoors.
Operator: Any person who has charge, care or control of a structure
or premises which is let or offered for occupancy.
iOwner: Any person, agent, operator, firm, or corporation having a
legal or equitable interest in the property; or recorded in the
official records of the state, county or municipality as holding
title to the property; or otherwise having control of the
property, including the guardian of the estate of any such
person, and the executor or administrator of the estate of such
- person if ordered to take possession of real property by a
court.
Person: An individual, corporation, partnership or any other group
acting as a unit. ,
Plumbing: The practice, materials, and fixtures used in the
installation, maintenance, extension and alteration of all
piping, fixtures, appliances, and appurtenances within the scope
of the plumbing code listed in Appendix A.
Plumbing fixture: A receptacle or device which is either permanently
or temporarily connected to the water distribution system of the
premises, and demands a supply of water therefrom; or discharges
used water, liquid-borne waste materials, or sewage either
directly or indirectly to the drainage system of the premises;
or which requires both a water supply connection and a discharge
to the drainage system of the premises .
16
TELEPHONE 847/931-6100
El6n
FAX 847/931-5610
FOR HEARING IMPAIRED
TDD 847/931-5616
CITY OF ELGIN 150 DEXTER COURT ELGIN, ILLINOIS 60120-5555
DEPARTMENT OF CODE ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 10, 1996
TO: Clay Pearson, Director
FROM: Renee Hanlon, Zoning Offic
SUBJECT: History of Required Off-Street Parking
•
The City of Elgin Zoning Ordinance did not include an off-street
parking section until March 8, 1962 . The following requirements
were added to the ordinance in 1962 :
Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces :
Use Spaces Required
Single Family At least one ( 1) space; plus one ( 1) space per
two (2 ) lodgers or roomers, but no more than
four (4 ) spaces .
Two Family At least one ( 1 ) space per dwelling unit,
but no more than two ( 2 ) spaces per dwelling
unit.
Multiple Family At least one ( 1 ) space per dwelling unit.
Rooming Houses At least two (2 ) spaces; plus one ( 1 )- space
per three ( 3 ) roomers .
The above requirements were in effect until July 23, 1984 . In
1984 the requirements were amended as follows :
Use Spaces Required
Single Family At least two (2 ) spaces; plus one ( 1) space
for each two (2 ) lodgers or roomers .
Two Family At least two ( 2 ) spaces per dwelling unit.
Multiple Family At least two (2 ) spaces per dwelling unit,
excluding efficiencies .
Efficiency At least one and one-half ( 1 1/2 ) spaces per
dwelling unit.
(i)
Prtnted on recycled paper
Parking Requirements
Page 2
•
Rooming Houses At least two (2 ) spaces; plus one ( 1 ) space
per two (2 ) roomers .
The above regulations were in effect until August 2 , 1992 . In 1992
the ordinance was amended as follows :
**No off-street parking is required of properties that fall within
the "CC1" Center City zoning district. No off-street parking is
required of properties that fall within the "CC2 " Center City
zoning district and are located within 800 feet of a municipal
parking facility.
Use Spaces Required
Dwelling One ( 1 ) space per 500 square feet of floor
area with a minimum of two (2 ) spaces per
dwelling unit, but need not exceed four (4 )
spaces per dwelling unit.
Efficiency One and one-half ( 1 1/2 ) spaces per dwelling
unit.
Elderly Public
Housing One ( 1) space per two (2 ) dwelling units .
The above regulations remain in effect.
cc: Roger Dahlstrom, Planning Director
,9:juinduia Gkemot
2400 Big Timber Road
Building A, Suite 108 Telephone (847) 741-5110
Elgin, Illinois 60123 (847) 741-5111
EiY
+�L
July 2, 1996
Clay Pearson
City of Elgin
150 Dexter Court
Elgin, Illinois 60120
Dear Clay,
Enclosed you will find the information that you requested. Our information, however,
only goes back as far as 1958 when property record cards were first utilized in Elgin
Township. Previous to that time, information was kept in ledgers which no longer exist.
Therefore, while the new cards contained more detailed information available at that time,
not all the information was transferred to the cards.
If you have any further questions, please call me at (847)741-5110.
Sincerely,
j, )2
Shirley A. Miller X T,2,,✓nSki Ps Pico o4" IASL,
Elgin Township Assessor a.t4 NSz ciP�"'`�L
•c/feemZe . zIel'a/ioaa/ wdalioz CAemi iy L" '
i
711E go-tom/go GkeogoZ
c'Sfiuley c/I eller 6, ci9. 6.
2400 Big Timber Road
Building A, Suite 108 Telephone (847) 741-5110
Elgin, Illinois 60123 (847) 741-5111
ce
June 21, 1996
Re: In reference to the valuation of property in Elgin Township.
Dear Clay,
Property in Elgin Township is assessed according to the following uses: single family, two
apartment, multi-family. commercial, industrial, agricutural, and vacant.
In addition to use, the square footage, ammenities, location, and condition all play a part
in valuing a parcel of property. We also have to study the market sales to determine the
current sale prices for similar properties of the same classification or use.
According to the Illinois State Statutes, the assessor's office values property in correlation
with the Market Value. Market value is determined in the market place by a transaction
between a buyer and a seller who are both knowledgable and willing.
I hope that this information will be helpful to you.
Sincerely,
0-1A-lty moiA,
Shirley A. Miller
Elgin Township Assessor
c f(dr.fet gaferziafioad (f/)oaaaoz f GtJieDxd7y Wccro
TELEPHONE 847/931-6100
2:in FAX 847/931-5610
FOR HEARING IMPAIRED
TDD 847/931-5616
CITY OF ELGIN 150 DEXTER COURT ELGIN, ILLINOIS 60120-5555
-1�
JUNE 19 , 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: CLAY PEARSON, CODE ADMINISTRATION DIRECTOR
FROM: JUDY PRIGGE, PERMIT CONTROL OFFICER
RE : ELECTRICAL SERV.'CT:S/COMMONWEALTH EDISON
From the time I started issuing building permits in Decem-
ber 1968, the established policy was for the City electri-
cal inspector to notify Commonwealth Edison when a new or
upgraded electrical service was ready to be connected.
If an electrical permit was to upgrade a service, or to add
electric meters on residential property, the procedure
was to check the zoning and permit records, and/or to do a
land use review (checking Polk Directories and the Asses-
sor ' s office) in order to determine that the use was law-
ful . In many cases a "house" meter was added for common
lighting or heating requirements . The same procedures are
still followed.
Although I am aware of a few instances where Commonwealth
Edison did connect a service without City approval, this
has been a very cooperative venture between the utility
company and the City to assure that new services meet both
the City' s and CE ' s requirements .
(i)
Printed on recycled paper
Loh iM
• F r2
n ��Y
°` �� Memorandum
0 1 a
July 5, 1996
TO: Bob Gilliam
Marie Yearman
Stuart Wasilowski
Miriam Scott
Betty Skyles
Jennifer VanDuyn
Edna Krueger
Dick Swanson
Bonnie Hill
Charlene Goldman
FROM: Ery Jentsch, Corporation Counsel
Clay J. Pearson, Director of Code Administration and
Neighborhood Affairs
SUBJECT: Unlawful Nonconforming Residential Uses Task Force
First of all, thanks to all of you for serving on the Task
Force formed by the Elgin City Council on June 10, 1996 . A
few summer vacations have helped preclude scheduling our
first meeting.
We have enclosed several items for your reference:
* June 26, 1996 City Council Resolution forming Task
Force on Unlawful Nonconforming Residential uses .
* June 5, 1996 memorandum from Erwin W. Jentsch and
Clay Pearson regarding Unlawful Nonconforming Resi-
dential Uses .
* Summary of Zoning Ordinance Districts and area
requirements 1928 to 1977 .
* June 19, 1996 memorandum from Stuart Wasilowski
providing names and background on neighborhood
representatives to the Task Force.
* June 28, 1996 inventory of properties known to have
illegal or unsubstantiated dwelling units .
Unlawful Nonconforming Residential Uses Task Force
Page -2-
We are looking at the week of July 15 for bringing our Task
Force together. Please let either of us know your preference
for meeting times and dates .
We have requested background information from both Common-
wealth Edison and Elgin, Dundee, and Hanover Park Township
Tax Assessors to obtain further relevant data for use in
developing a recommendation to the City Concil . This informa-
tion will be passed along as soon as it is received.
Sincerely,
Erw n W. Jentsch Clay Pearson, Director
Co oration Counsel Dept. of Code Administration
and Neighborhood Affairs
CJP/sm
c: Richard B. Helwig, City Manager
r rr C' c5��--
Resolution No. 96-200
RESOLUTION
ESTABLISHING AN UNLAWFUL NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USES
TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable to create an
Unlawful Nonconforming Residential Uses Task Force to study
and review unlawful nonconforming residential uses and to make
recommendations concerning the regulation of such uses to the
City Council .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS, that there is hereby established an
Unlawful Nonconforming Residential Uses Task Force which shall
be comprised of twelve members, two councilmembers and two
staff members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice
and consent of the City Council . Two realtors, two property
owners/landlords and two representatives from Neighborhood
Housing Services shall be appointed by said groups and two
representatives from neighborhood groups as recommended by
Neighborhood Housing Services shall be appointed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Unlawful Nonconforming
Residential Uses Task Force shall conduct such public hearings
as it may determine are necessary and shall otherwise meet and
confer.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Unlawful Nonconforming
Residential Uses Task Force shall consider the number, kind,
date and circumstances of establishment, effects on
surrounding neighborhoods, and of unlawful nonconforming uses
in the City of Elgin and shall make its recommendations for
necessary and desirable ordinances and programs to the Mayor
and City Council .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following persons are
hereby appointed as members on behalf of City of Elgin of the
Unlawful Nonconforming Residential Uses Task Force:
Robert Gilliam Erwin W. Jentsch
Marie Yearman Clay Pearson
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Unlawful Nonconforming
Residential Uses Task Force shall conduct its meetings in
accordance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act.
Kevin Kelly, Mayor
Presented: June 26, 1996
Adopted:
Vote: Yeas Nays
Recorded:
Attest:
Dolonna Mecum, City Clerk
2\/1
` June 5, 1996
MEMORANDUM
.
TO: Richard B. Helwig, City,Manager
FROM: Erwin W. Jentsch, Corporation Counsel
Clay J. Pearson, Director of Code Administration
SUBJECT: Unlawful Nonconforming Residential Uses
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to review the subject of
unlawful nonconforming residential uses and options which may
be considered to provide relief in certain instances .
BACKGROUND
Zoning Law Regarding Nonconforming Uses
Zoning ordinances typically divide cities into geographic
areas called zoning districts, with the zoning districts
listing the permitted uses of both buildings and land located
within those districts . When zoning ordinances are amended
to create new zoning districts, or change the permitted or
conditional uses in existing districts, the new or redefined
zoning districts often encompass areas where the uses of
buildings and land have been previously established. A use
of, a building or land that does not comply with present zon-
ing provisions, but which was lawfully established prior to
the enactment of the new zoning provision is referred to as a
preexisting or lawful nonconforming use (commonly re-
ferred to as being "grandfathered" ) . Lawful nonconforming
uses are allowed to continue so long as the use is not expand-
ed, destroyed or abandoned.
By contrast, an unlawful nonconforming use is a use that
was not lawfully established at the time the zoning ordinance
making it nonconforming took effect, or a use that was estab-
lished under a zoning ordinance that did not permit the use
within the district the property is located. A city can
initiate legal action to compel the owner of an unlawful
nonconforming use to bring the property into lawfully conform-
ing status no matter how long ago the unlawful use was estab-
lished; failing to prosecute the property owner for the viola-
tion--even if the unlawful nonconforming use existed for dec-
ades--is not a valid defense. The property owner has the bur-
den of proving the use was lawfully established in any such
proceeding.
June 5, 1996
Page 3
fore a license is issued. Owners failing to deconvert their
properties are referred to the corporation counsel for prose-
cution in housing court or the filing of an injunctive law-
suit. A number of affected property owners are asserting
that the City is unfairly enforcing the zoning ordinance
against them in some cases because the enforcement is taking
place, in a few instances, decades after the violations came
into existence.
Some owners of unlawful nonconforming residential uses have
made "backdoor" attempts to have their unlawful uses brought
into conformity with the zoning ordinance. The affected own-
ers submit applications to have their properties classified
as Planned Developments (346 Wilcox Avenue is a case in
point) . By definition, a Planned Development consists of a
land area, generally the size of a subdivision plat, that is
developed by a single entity for a number of dwelling units
and any commercial and industrial uses . The plan for the
Planned Development does not correspond to the regulations
established for the zoning district in which the Planned
Development is located, including lot size, type of dwelling
or commercial or industrial use, density, lot coverage, or
open space. Consequently, if a property owner's unlawful
nonconforming four-family dwelling is designated as a Planned
Development, that multiple-family dwelling is permitted to
lawfully exist in an area zoned for single-family residential
use. This defeats the intent of the zoning ordinance and of
course is a misapplication of the Planned Development zoning
technique.
Options for Relief
Should the City Council deem it necessary or desirable to
provide some type of legal relief to owners of unlawful non-
conforming uses, there are two methods that can be employed
to provide that relief while maintaining the integrity of the
zoning ordinance. Under the first method, a text amendment
to the zoning ordinance would authorize the Zoning and Subdi-
vision Hearing Board (ZSHB) to hear appeals from persons
seeking time extensions for correcting or discontinuing
an existing zoning violation; in other words, prosecution
forbearance. The second method would also involve a text
amendment providing the ZSHB with the authority to confer
lawful nonconforming status to unlawful nonconforming uses lk
established before 1950 .
Prosecution Forbearance
The sole purpose of the prosecution forbearance hearing would
be to determine whether there are factual circumstances sur-
rounding the property's unlawful nonconforming status to
justify the City' s temporary forbearance in prosecuting the
property owner for the violation. This hearing would not
address the zoning officer' s determination that an unlawful
June 5, 1996
Page 5
provisions requiring the property owner to show the use was
established during a national housing shortage, that the
creation of the use was tacitly approved by the City, and
that the use is not adversely affecting the neighborhood.
(Based upon the 3000 land use determinations performed by
DCA, at least 35 properties would be eligible for this re-
lief.
Objectors ' Perspective
Objectors to the proposed text amendment may assert the ap-
proach represents a return to weak zoning ordinance enforce-
ment. It also may be asserted that forbearance in prosecution
only serves to delay the City's stated goal of reducing resi-
dential density. However, if the ZSHB only grants exten-
sions in those instances of extreme hardship, the time exten-
sion provision will provide the City with a means of granting
limited legal relief to property owners without violating the
spirit of the zoning ordinance. Recording the limitation on
the nonconforming uses duration will also protect future
purchasers and transferees .
ALTERNATIVES
A text amendment authorizing use variances is an alternative
method of providing relief to affected property owners . The
criteria required to be established before obtaining a use
variance would not differ from that needed to obtain a time
extension. But unlike the time extension, once a use vari-
ance is granted, the property becomes a lawful nonconform-
ing use, permitting the additional dwelling units to remain
so long as they are not abandoned or destroyed.
Affected property owners will favor the adoption of a use
variance provision because it is the sole method available
for legalizing their unlawful nonconforming uses . But such a
method poses a risk of seriously undermining the zoning ordi-
nance. The purpose of any zoning ordinance is to provide for
the eventual elimination of lawful nonconforming uses and the
immediate elimination of unlawful nonconforming uses . A text
amendment authorizing use variances will seriously detract
from that goal.
COMMUNITY GROUPS/INTERESTED PERSONS CONTACTED
Text amendments to the zoning ordinance require a public
hearing.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
A filing fee for submitting an application for a time exten-
sion for eliminating an unlawful nonconforming residential
use would be imposed. The fee would reflect the administra-
May 20, 1996 • ,
•
Code Administration Update . . -
Elgin is clearly a community moving forward. We believe the community's continued
success is linked to the vitality of our neighborhoods. One key aspect of neighborhood vitality is
encouraging rehabilitation and improvement to the housing stock. This report provides an update
on four issues associated with our neighborhood improvement efforts.
CON..MUNTTY PARTNERS • For the last year it has been my pleasure to work with
many individual citizens along with groups such as the Elgin Area Association of Realtors,
Neighborhood Housing Services of EIgin, the Property Owners Association, the Chamber of
Commerce, service clubs, and neighborhood associations. Our staff is dedicated to long-term
relationships with these groups. This year Elgin became the first city in the country to have all of
its property maintenance inspectors receive national certification from the building officials'
association.
BEYOND CASA LINDA■ The acquisition and demolition Iast year of the long-standing
nuisance property known as Casa Linda shows the commitment to making Elgin a city of the
future. Moving beyond that community accomplishment, we are also proud of many other
achievements in the last year. For example, Neighborhood Housing Services is making great
strides as they expand to a city-wide organization buying, rehabilitating, and reselling distressed
properties. The City's residential rehabilitation rebate program continues to enjoy success and
popularity (contact Bobby Richardson for more information, 931-5917).
For the last year, our Department of Code Administration and Neighborhood Affairs has
focused on the worst properties. We have focused on nuisance properties at the center of
violence, dangerous code violations, and the properties falling into disrepair. The commitment is
evidenced in the most recent (April 25, 1996) Problem Property Status Report attached for your
reference. As another problem property abatement measure, we are beginning to issue repair or
demolish orders for properties vacant or abandoned. Working with Assistant Corporation
Counsel Rick Kozal, hired by the City last year to focus specifically on housing issues, the court
allowed demolition of a long-vacant property after the owner failed to repair the building.---
LAND USE REVIEWS • One of the priorities the community has undertaken is a
systematic licensing program for investment rental properties. In conjunction with the Rental
Licensing program, we have undertaken an exhaustive process of reviewing land uses. There was
a need to establish the legal use of properties in relation to the Zoning Ordinance. •
How are land use determinations made? A process uniformly guides land use
determinations. Land use reviews compare the current use of the property with the use allowed
by the Zoning Ordinance. Relying upon City records, utility information, tax assessor records,
and personal statements, a history of the land use can generally be reconstructed. The
determination has one of three possible results. The property can be found to contain a lawful
use, a lawful nonconforming use, or an illegal use.
Definitions used in land use determinations may be helpful at this point.
• A lawful use is one currently allowed by the current zoning classification.
• The Zoning Ordinance has been modified several times as the city has grown and
progressed. For instance, there are areas where it was once legal to convert a
single-family residence into a multi-family property. Later zoning ordinances prohibited
51IA 0 P Eli i n ?on;a�,Ti`s is
a4)4tet�inerw 1928 boo 1477
1928 ZONING ORDINANCE February 8, 1928
Zoning Districts Maximum Building Coverage
Interior Lot Corner Lot
"A" Residential (single family) 30% 40%
"B" Residential (single family) 40% 50%
(two+ family) 40% 50%
"C" Residential (single family) 50% 60%
(two+ family) 50% 60%
"D" Commercial (single family) 75% 85%
(two+ family 75% 85%
"E" Commercial (single family) 75% 85%
(two+ family 75% 85%
"F" Commercial (single family) 85% 95%
(two+ family 85% 95%
"G" Industrial (single family) 75% 85%
(two+ family 75% 85%
"H" Industrial ( single family) 75% 85%
(two+ family) 75% 85%
1950 ZONING ORDINANCE March 23, 1950
Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Area /
Dwelling Unit
"A" Single Family District
(single family) 6 , 000 square feet
"B" Two Family District
( single family) 6 , 000 square feet
(two family) 3, 000 square feet
"C" Apartment District
( single family) 6 ,000 square feet
(two family) 3, 000 square feet
(multiple family) 1,500 square feet
"D" Commercial District
( single family) 6 ,000 square feet
(two family) 3, 000 square feet
(multiple family) 1, 500 square feet
"E" Commercial District
( single family) 6 , 000 square feet
(two family) 3 , 000 square feet
(multiple family) 1, 500 square feet
"F" Light Industrial District
( single family) 6 , 000 square feet
(two family) 3 , 000 square feet
(multiple family) 1, 500 square feet
"G" Industrial District
(single family) 6 , 000 square feet
1
MEMO. 02/ZOSTATUS/ZONING/MEMOS
(two family) 3,000 square feet
(multiple family) 1,500 square feet
1955 ZONING ORDINANCE
Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Area /
Dwelling Unit
"A" Single Family District
(single family) 6, 000 square feet
"B" Two Family District
( single family) 6 , 000 square feet
(two family) 3 ,000 square feet
"C" Apartment District
( single family) 6, 000 square feet
(two family) 3 ,000 square feet
(multiple family) 1,500 square feet
"DD" Limited Commercial District
(single family) 6, 000 square feet
(two family) 3, 000 square feet
(multiple family) 1,500 square feet
"D" Commercial District
(single family) 6 , 000 square feet
(two family) 3 , 000 square feet
(multiple family) 1, 500 square feet
"E" Commercial District
(single family) 6 , 000 square feet
(two family) 3 , 000 square feet
(multiple family) 1 ,500 square feet
"F" Light Industrial District
( single family) 6 , 000 square feet
(two family) 3, 000 square feet
(multiple family) 1,500 square feet
"G" Industrial District
( single family) 6 , 000 square feet
(two family) 3, 000 square feet
(multiple family) 1,500 square feet
•
2
MEMO. 02/ZOSTATUS/ZONING/MEMOS
1962 ZONING ORDINANCE March 9, 1962
Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Area /
Dwelling Unit
R-1 Single Family Residence District
(single family) 8, 750 square feet
R-2 Single Family Residence District
(single family) 7,500 square feet
R-3 Two Family Residence District **
(single family) 6 ,000 square feet
(two family) 3 , 300 square feet
R-4 General Residence District **
(single family) 6 ,000 square feet
(two family) 3, 300 square feet
(Multiple family)
four bedroom 3 ,000 square feet
three bedroom 2, 700 square feet
two bedroom 2 ,400 square feet
one bedroom 2 , 100 square feet
efficiency 1, 800 square feet
R-5 General Residence District **
(single family) 5, 000 square feet
(two family) 3, 000 square feet
(Multiple family)
-- one bedroom plus 1, 800 square feet
efficiency 900 square feet
lodging room 600 square feet
R-6 General Residence District **
( single family) 5 ,000 square feet
(two family) 3 ,000 square feet
(multiple family)
one bedroom plus 1, 800 square feet
efficiency 900 square feet
lodging room 600 square feet
4 stories & over 500 square feet
B-1 Community Business District
(any type of dwelling)
one bedroom plus 1, 800 square feet
efficiency 900 square feet
lodging room 400 square feet
B-2 Central Business District
(any type of dwelling) 400 square feet
B-3 Service Business District
(any type of dwelling)
one bedroom plus 1 ,800 square feet
efficiency 900 square feet
lodging room 400 square feet
3
MEMO . 02/ZOSTATUS/ZONING/MEMOS
B-4 General Service District
(any type of dwelling)
one bedroom plus 1, 800 square feet
efficiency 900 square feet
lodging room 400 square feet
M-1 Limited Manufacturing District
(any type of dwelling)
one bedroom plus 1,800 square feet
efficiency 900 square feet
lodging room 400 square feet
M-2 General Manufacturing District
(any type of dwelling)
one bedroom plus 1, 800 square feet
efficiency 900 square feet
lodging room 400 square feet
**
EZO-1962, 21-104 (F) . Control Over Use. No building or
or premises shall hereafter be used or occupied, and no
building or structure or part thereof shall be erected,
raised, moved, reconstructed, extended, enlarged, or
altered except in conformity with the regulations
herein specified, for the district in which it is
located; except as follows :
In residence districts a parcel of land which was a lot
of record (developed or undeveloped) as of the
effective date of the ordinance codified herein and for
which a building permit could have been issued under
the terms and conditions of Ordinance No. G-685 , known
as the "Revised Zoning Ordinance of the City of Elgin,
Illinois" , passed on March 15, 1950, even though not
meeting the requirements of this title as to area and
width, may be used for single family and two family
dwellings in the R3, R4, R5, amnd R6 districts, and
such residence property may be improved, altered and
remodeled, provided that it meets all other regulations
of the district in which it is located (namely 50 feet
in average lot width and 6 ,000 square feet in lot
area) .
_J
4
MEMO. 02/ZOSTATUS/ZONING/MEMOS
1971 ZONING ORDINANCE April 14, 1971
Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Area /
Dwelling Unit
R-1 Single Family Residence District
(single family) 20 , 000 square feet
R-2 Single Family Residence District
(single family) 7 , 500 square feet
R-3 Two Family Residence District **
(single family) 6, 000 square feet
(two family) 3 , 300 square feet
R-4 General Residence District **
(single family) 6 , 000 square feet
(two family) 3, 300 square feet
(multiple family)
one bedroom plus 2 ,400 square feet
efficiency 1, 650 square feet
R-5 General Residence District **
(single family) 5, 000 square feet
(two family) 3 , 000 square feet
(multiple family)
one bedroom plus 1, 800 square feet
efficiency 900 square feet
lodging room 600 square feet
R-6 General Residence District **
(single family) 5 , 000 square feet
(two family) 3 , 000 square feet
(multiple family)
one bedroom plus 1, 800 square feet
efficiency 900 square feet
lodging room 600 square feet
4 stories & over 500 square feet
Business Districts
(no dwellings permitted)
Manufacturing Districts
(no dwellings permitted)
**
EZO-1962 , 21-104 (F) . Control Over Use. No building or
or premises shall hereafter be used or occupied, and no
building or structure or part thereof shall be erected,
raised, moved, reconstructed, extended, enlarged, or
altered except in conformity with the regulations
herein specified, for the district in which it is
located; except as follows :
In residence districts a parcel of land which was a lot
of record (developed or undeveloped) as of the
effective date of the ordinance codified herein and for
.✓ which a building permit could have been issued under
5
MEMO. 02/ZOSTATUS/ZONING/MEMOS
the terms and conditions of Ordinance No. G-685, known
as the "Revised Zoning Ordinance of the City of Elgin,
Illinois, " passed on March 15, 1950, even though not
meeting the requirements of this title as to area and
width, may be used for single family and two family
dwellings in the R3, R4 , R5, amnd R6 districts , and
such residence property may be improved, altered and
remodeled, provided that it meets all other regulations
of the district in which it is located (namely 50 feet
in average lot width and 6 , 000 square feet in lot
area) .
1977 ZONING ORDINANCE 197'
Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Area
Dwelling Unit
R-1 Single Family Residence District
(single family) 20, 000 square fee.
R-2 Single Family Residence District
(single family) 7 ,500 square fee.
R-3 Two Family Residence District *
(single family) 6 , 000 square fee-
(two family) 5, 000 square fee.
R-4 General Residence District **
(single family) 6 , 000 square fee.
(two family) 5, 000 square fee'
(Multiple family) 3 ,000 square fee.
Business Districts
(no dwellings permitted)
Manufacturing Districts
(no dwellings permitted)
*
EZO-1977, 19 . 16 . 030 B. The foregoing minimum lot area
per dwelling unit requirements shall not apply to those
existing vacant lots of record within the corporate
limits as of the date of the ordinance codified in this
chapter. Such lots shall continue to be subject to the
minimum lot area requirements contained in Ordinance
No . G-967 passed March 9 , 1962, namely, three thousand
three hundred ( 3 , 300) square feet of lot area per
dwelling unit for two family dwellings .
**
EZO-1977 19 . 06 . 050 Conformance with Use Provisions
Required. No building or or premises shall hereafter
be used or occupied, and no building or structure or
part thereof shall be erected, raised, moved,
reconstructed, extended, enlarged, or altered except in
6
MEMO. 02/ZOSTATUS/ZONING/MEMOS
•
conformity with the regulations herein specified, for
the district in which it is located; except as follows :
In residence districts a parcel of land which was a lot
of record (developed or undeveloped) as of the
effective date of the ordinance codified herein and for
which a building permit could have been issued under
the terms and conditions of Ordinance No . G-685 , known
as the "Revised Zoning Ordinance of the City of Elgin,
Illinois, " passed on March 15, 1950, even though not
meeting the requirements of this title as to area and
width, may be used for single family and two family
dwellings in the R3 , R4, R5, amnd R6 districts, and
such residence property may be improved, altered and
remodeled, provided that it meets all other regulations
of the district in which it is located (namely 50 feet
in average lot width and 6, 000 square feet in lot
area) .
ing Department, City of Elgin, JTD/jd, 09 . 07 . 94
7
02/ZOSTATUS/ZONING/MEMOS
NHS Memorandum
,„„„„,;„,„„.,,;„,„„,„,„;„,„„„„,;„,„„„„„„„,;,,„„;,,;,,.;,.„,,,.„,„„,„„,,,,„,;,.„,;„„„„„„„„,„„„.:„„„„„„„,„„„„„„„„„„,„„„„„„„„,;„,;„„,„„;,;„„„„„„,::,,;„„„„„„„„,;„,„,„,,„..:,.„,,,;,.;.:„„„„,,„,::„„„.:,:,;,;„„,;„,;„„,;,;„„„„„,;„,,.„„;„„,;„„„„„„„„„,„„„„,„..„:,„„„„„„,::„.:„„„„„„,,.„„„,„„,„„„„„„„.;.,,,;,„„,
TO: Clay Pearson
FROM: Stuart Wasilowski
DATE: June 19, 1996
RE: Task Force Appointments
$'•ii:i:i;.:;:nv:iii:iiii:::iii':iiii::4:::iii:ii iiiii::isiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:..:::::::::::ix
::::::::::.v:::nv::v:•::•ry:i4'+J'�i:•i .........r...:.f .........................r............................................. :r:.%:�iiiiiiiii:•::4i:Cii}iiii:•:i::viti i:4:;ii}iiv:?i::i::i::{:;•iiiiiiiiii:-:4iii:•iiiiiiiii::�;::
............... ....v..n..r.................................. ...............m:::::::::::::::f.-:.v::::::•::rr:::r:::.:•::::r::::v::::::::::::.::.v::r:u.:..:..:::.:.:....:::::r:::::::::::::::::.v::::.:.
The following is a list of appointments for the Task Force:
Stuart Wasilowski- NHS Representative
Elgin resident 10 years
Property owner
Graduate Elgin Leadership Academy
Participant Resident Leadership Conference- Elgin, IL
Member of New Century Partnership
Member of Planning and Development Commission
Member of YMCA Board of Directors
B.A. Sociology
Masters Business Adminstration
Betty Skyles-NHS Representative
Elgin resident 10 years
Property owner
Graduate Elgin Leadership Academy
Participant Resident Leadership Conference- Elgin, IL
Rental Property Owner
SOS Neighborhood Representative
Jennifer Van Duyn- Neighborhood Representative
Elgin resident 12 years
Property owner
Graduate Elgin Leadership Academy
Participant Resident Leadership Conference - Elgin, IL
Board member- Northeast Neighborhood Association
Past Board member-Gifford Park Association
Rental Property Owner
B.S. Accounting
Masters Business Adminstration
Miriam Scott- Neighborhood Representative
Elgin resident 28 years
Property owner
Graduate Elgin Leadership Academy
Participant Resident Leadership Conference- Elgin, IL
Neighborhood Watch Block Captain
B.S. Mathematics, Minor Human Relations
ADDRESS Number Lawful Current Cony Lot Permit Ext Owner Tw•
#Units #Units Year Area Issued Rat Occ?
ADAMS ST 312 4 5 1969 7,225 2 Y
ADDISON ST 441 4 5 1969 8,704 067 2
ALGONA AVE 370 2 4 1946 8,504 1
ANN ST 209 1 2 1976 2,310 1 Y
ASHLAND AVE 515 1 2 1981 7,975 041 2 Y
AUGUSTA AVE 805 1 2 1948 8,712 Y
AUGUSTA AVE 843 1 2 1941 8,712 840 1 ' Y
AUGUSTA ST 839 1 2 1971 8,712 2 Y
BALL ST 330 1 2 1972 4,293 1 Y
BALL ST 410 1 2 1937 6,468 1
BARRETT ST 483 1 2 1988 4,400 Y
BARTLETT PL 269 1 2 1989 2,669 E84 3 Y
BENT ST 358 2 3 1982 6,800 E91 III
BIRD ST 523 2 3 1976 8,160
BLUFF CITY BLVD 664 1 3 1995 7,410 692
BODE RD 700 6 8 1988 19,951 E72
BOOTH_ CT 364/365 4 6 1979 + 22,609 051
BOWEN CT 420 1 2 1939 5,099 Y 1
BROOK ST 465 1 2 1954 8,712 B85 Y 2
BROOK ST 500 2 3 1995 7,623 B68 3
BROOK ST 628 2 3 1971 9,825 E40 Y 2
BROOK ST 629 1 2 1993 10,890 E93 1
BROOK ST 712 1 2 1959 11,361 2
CENTER ST 1029/1031 2 3 1939 7,276 E82
- - -1 - - -
CENTER ST 255 2 4 1991 2,904
CENTER ST 415 1 2 1986 8,712
CHANNING ST N 140 2 3 1992 6,476 093 0
~
CHANNING ST N 152 2 3 1992 8,026 060 Y
CHANNING STS 15/17 4 5 1993 7,200 E93 2
CHANNING ST S 222 1 2 1992 10,890 H92 1 Y
CHAPEL ST N 22 2 3 1981 8,580 B41 1
CHERRY ST _ 114 3 4 -t - 8,712 E55 2
CHERRY ST 210 2 3 1981 7,920
CHICAGO ST E 317 7 8 1983 4,356 E38 1
CHICAGO ST E 327 1 2 _ 1986 3,486 2
- ---- --- -
CHICAGO ST E 376 5 6 1973 14,520 E44 2 5
CHICAGO ST E 431 3 4 1978 6,600 E48 1 Y 3
ADDRESS Number Lawful Current Cony Lot Permit Ext Owner Twp
#Units #Units Year Area Issued Rat Occ? Use
CHICAGO ST E 492 3 4 1983 8,831 3 3
CHICAGO ST E 532 2 3 1977 5,876 2 2
CHICAGO ST E 680 1 2 1986 15,307 2
CHICAGO ST E 900 1 2 1981 58,625 E53 2
CHICAGO ST W 321/323 3 4 1986 7,128 E45 2 2
CHICAGO ST W 443 1 2 1915 9,931 Y 1
CLARK ST 512 1 2 1987 7,709 1 Y 2
COLLEGE - -_-ST 213 2 3 1992 3,317 2 Y 2
COMMONWEALTH AVE 168 1 2 1937 6,389 027 Y 2
COOKANE AVE 862 1 2 1958 8,774 Y 2
COOPER AVE 610 1 2 1972 6,379 Y 2
CRYSTAL AVE N 52 5 7 1945 8,712 E42 7
CRYSTAL AVE N 361 1 2 1987 32,430 2
DANIELS AVE 21 2 3 1973 2,880 E56 3 1
DOUGLAS AVE 258 1 2 1989 12,072 1 Y 1
DOUGLAS AVE 714 1 2 1991 7,161 1 Y 1
DUBOIS AVE N 155 1 2 1984 3,859 E84 2 _
DUBOIS AVE N 156 1 2 1982 6,682 E85 Y 2
DUNDEE AVE 304 2 3 1921 5,206 3 3
DUNDEE AVE 320/322 2 4 2,248 2 2
DUPAGE ST 315/317 5 6 1933 8,712 2 5
DUPAGE ST 427 1 2 8,768 1 2
DUPAGE ST 433 4 5 1974 8,580 B39 2 4
DWIGHT ST 307 2 3 1939 5,447 2 Y 2
DWIGHT ST 414 1 2 1989 8,712 1 Y 1
FRANKLIN ST 274 1 2 1970 3,564 Y 2
FRANKLIN ST 438 2 4 1971 9,108 E47 1 3
GENEVA STN 15/17 5 6 1966 5,412 E86 6
GENEVA ST S 73 1 4 4,356 E86 4
GETZELMAN AVE 1274 8 9 1977 10,100 076 9
GETZELMAN AVE 1350 8 9 1975 14,375 040 9
GIFFORD PL 285 1 2 1988 3,267 E39 2 2
GIFFORD QST N 270 2 4 1983 3,213 1 2
GIFFORD ST N 310 1 2 1974 8,184 2 Y 2
GIFFORD ST N 416 2 3 1962 5,576 2 2
GOETHE ST 826 1 2 1986 16,112 1 Y 2
GRISWOLD ST 375 1 2 1939 9,042 2 Y 2
ADDRESS Number Lawful Current Cony Lot Permit Ext Owner Twp
#Units #Units Year Area Issued Rat Occ? Use
HARDING ST 165 1 2 1975 2,460 2 Y 2
HENDEE ST 448/450 2 3 1968 7,535 2 4
HENDEE ST 516 1 2 1950 7,975 Y 2
HIGHLAND AVE W 1218 1 2 1979 6,996 059 1 Y 1
HIGHLAND AVE W 1254 1 2 1960 6,996 Y 2
HIGHLAND _ AVE W 628 2 3 1984 19,434 1 Y 3
HIGHLAND AVE W 717/719 105 106 1962 6,062 1 105
HIGHLAND SAVE W 501/503 1 4 1951 11,407 4
HIGHLAND AVE W 788 1 2 1959 7,669 Y 2
HIGHLAND AVE W 861/863 4 2 1927 18,153 E87 4
HILL AVE 133r--_1 2 1993 9,108 Y 1
HILL AVE 22/24 3 4 1984 9,108 B63 2 4
- - - -
HILL AVE 252 1 2 1990 7,623 Y 1
ILLINOIS AVE 319 2 3 166,352 2 2
ILLINOIS AVE 333 2 3 1973 147,319 E56 2 2
ILLINOIS AVE 801 1 3 1937 5,607 Y 3
ILLINOIS AVE 925 1 2 7,860 2 Y 2
JACKSON ST S 52 1 2 4,356 Y 2
JEFFERSON AVE 29 1 2 1971 2,880 2 2
JEFFERSON AVE 365 2 3 1955 9,480 E55 3
JEFFERSON AVE 427 2 3 8,378 E85 2
JEFFERSON AVE 484 1 2 1940 11,931 Y 1
JEWETT ST 403 1 _ 2 1959 4,676 1 2
KEEP AVE 657 1 2 1994 7,366 E94 2
KIMBALL ST 316 1 3 1968 9,587 1 Y 2
LARKIN AVE 815 2 3 1983 6,125 2 2
LARKIN AVE 920 2 3 1986 5,676 E86 2 3
LARKIN AVE 1965 1 2 1991 15,591 1
LEONARD .ST 54 1 2 1986 3,206 2 2
LIBERTY ST N 120 1 2 1976 8,613 1 Y 1
LIBERTY ST S 150 2 3 1929 5,544 2 2
LIBERTY ST S 156 1t 2 1992 3,696 3 2
LIBERTY STS 384 1 2 _ 1995 4,207 Y 1
LIBERTY ST S 472 1 2 1994 6,573 Y 2
LIBERTY STS 511 1 2 1974 7,508 E74 2 Y 1
LIBERTY ST S 55 2 3 1974 25,155 E48 Y 3
LILAC LN 312 4 5 1978 10,125 068 5
ADDRESS Number Lawful Current Cony Lot Permit Ext Owner Twp
#Units #Units Year Area Issued Rat Occ? Use
LILAC LN 301/311 11 12 1990 33,888 B90 11
LILLIE ST 564 1 2 1973 6,600 1 Y 1
LOCUST AVE 565 1 2 1993 3,598 1 1
LOCUST ST 318 2 3 1941 6,305 2 Y 3
LOCUST ST 466 1 2 1958 10,883 058 2 2
LOGAN AVE 921 1 2 1917 9,064 1
LOVELL ST 259 1 2 1969 7,028 060 1 Y 1
LUDEKA PL 110 1 2 8,712 1 Y 1
LYNCH ST 30 1 2 1987 5,808 059 2 Y 1
MARGUERITE ST 309 1 2 1939 8,712 1 Y 2
MAY ST 365 1 2 1988 8,507 E88 Y 1
MCCLURE AVE 321 2 5 9,912 E53 1 Y 5
MCCLURE AVE 520 1 3 1939 8,712 Y 2
MEYER ST 1621 6 8 1981 10,480 6
MICHIGAN ST 256 2 5 1950 3,490 5
MILL ST 603 2 3 1972 6,098 E72 1 Y 2
MORGAN ST 276 1 2 1927 8,712 1 2
MORGAN ST 425 1 2 1941 7,375 E65 2 Y 1
MORTON AVE 1155 1 2 1937 6,534 2
MOSELEY _ ST 344 1 2 1940 7,729 Y 2
MOSELEY ST 355 1 2 1965 8,093 1 Y 2
MOSELEY ST 360 1 2 1967 7,260 1 1
MOSELEY ST 364 1 2 1941 11,220 E87 2 Y 2
MOUNTAIN ST 315 1 3 1928 18,018 7
NATIONAL ST 20 1 2 1977 5,448 E77 2 Y 2
NATIONAL ST 262 0 1 1961 10,755 1
NORTH ST 312 2 3 1995 4,221 E85 2 2
NORTH ST 372 2 3 1980 4,554 E88 3 3
NORTH ST 400 1 4 1995 6,267 H95 Y 1
OAK ST 452/454 1 2 1928 8,874 2
OAK ST 831 1 2 5,410 1 Y 2
ORCHARD ST 315 1 2 1943 10,890 1 Y 1
PARK ST 384 2 3 1989 8,045 E64 2 2
PARK ST 398 1 2 1948 6,400 2
PARK ST 482 3 4 1979 11,180 E53 2 3
PERCY ST 265 2 4 1950 5,212 _ 4
PERCY ST 306 4 5 1986 6,048 1 5
PLUM CT 392 1 2 1981 6,957 2 1
ADDRESS Number Lawful Current Cony Lot Permit Ext Owner Twp
#Units #Units Year Area Issued Rat Occ? Use
PLUM ST 327 1 2 1993 8,712 B93 2 Y 1
PORTER ST N 134 1 2 1939 8,712 1 Y 2
PORTER ST S 29 2 3 1977 5,865 2 2
PRAIRIE ST 427 1 2 1974 5,280 2 Y 2
PRESTON AVE 857 1 3 4,072 Y 1
PRESTON AVE 1158 1 2 1925 8,290 2
PROSPECT BLVD 605 1 3 1979 8,185 2 Y 3
RAYMOND ST 412 1 2 6,775 2 1
RAYMOND ST 505 1 2 1978 5,016 Y 2
RAYMOND ST 682 1 2 1995 5,400 Y 2
RAYMOND ST 703 2 3 _ 1956 17,424 1 3
RUGBY PL 24 4 5 1984 8,184 060 1 5
RUSSELL ST 429 1 2 1993 8,250 E93 Y 1
RYERSON AVE 360 1 2 1992 4,620 058 1 Y 2
RYERSON AVE 436 1 2 1983 7,920 1 2
SHERMAN AVE 400 1 2 1923 4,640 2
SHERMAN AVE 432 2 3 1968 26,136 2 3
SOUTH ST 304 5 6 1971 3,300 E87 92 1 5
SOUTH ST 311 3 4 1973 5,591 E68 1 4
SOUTH ST 429 1 2 1959 17,915 1 Y 2
SOUTH ST 444 4 5 1985 16,533 B85 1 4
SOUTH ST 509 3 4 1974 8,712 E54 2 3
SOUTH ST 656/658 3 4 1994 15,409 Y 3
SOUTH ST 840 1 2 1969 11,682 2
SPRING ST N 255 7 8 1988 10,890 2 9
SPRING ST N 279 2 4 1943 4,356 B81 2 4
SPRING STN 420 1 2 7,848 _ 1 Y 2
SPRING STN 617 1 2 1986 8,712 E39 2 Y 2
SPRING STN 625 1 2 1982 8,712 E82 1 Y 2
STATE STS _ 370 1 2 1927 10,890 1 2
STATE STS 576 2 5 1977 42,141 B77 2
ST CHARLES ST 1005 1 2 1929 2
ST CHARLES ST 326 1 2 1982 4,468
ST CHARLES ST 989 1 2 1965 8,712 E56 2 1
ADDRESS Number Lawful Current Cony Lot Permit Ext Owner Twp_
#Units #Units Year Area Issued Rat Occ? Use
ST CHARLES ST 343 2 4 1968 12,282 2 2
ST CHARLES ST 426 1 2 1982 4,467 E82 2 1
ST CHARLES ST 951 2 3 1951 9,850 049 Y 2
STELLA CT 540 1 2 1988 6,596 2 1
SURRY CT 52 5 6 1967 11,250 B66 5
VANDALIA ST 317 1 2 1937 8,712 B41 1 Y 2
VANDALIA ST 325/327 1 2 1939 8,712 2
VERNON N DR _ 2183 16 18 10,787 B69 18
VILLA ST 224/226 1 3 1976 5,940 E44 4
VILLA ST 274 1 2 1993 8,168 B93 Y 2
VILLA ST 278 2 _ 3 1978 6,534 2 2
VILLA ST 288 5 8 1969 8,316 P58 1 8
VILLA ------ ------ ST --- 296 --- 2 3 5,268 1 2
VILLA ST 420 1 2 1986 8,712 Y 2
VILLA ST 535 2 3 6,532 1 Y
VILLA ST 611 2 4 1991 12,000 1 Y 2
VILLA ST 643 2 3 1989 4,973 E80 1 Y 4
----------------- - -- ---- -----
VILLA ST 708 2 3 1984 8,804 E46 1 4
VILLA ST 719 1 2 1980 3,878 E87 1 1
WALNUT _ AVE 424 3 4 1985 7,843 2 4
WALNUT AVE 576 2 3 1977 7,759 E54 Y 3
WALNUT AVE 615 2 3 1974 21,780 E31 65 2 Y 2
WALNUT AVE 825 1 3 8,712 1 3
WASHBURN ST 117 2 3 1993 _2,178 E82 1 2
WASHBURN ST 455 1 2 1986 8,250 E86 1 2
WASHINGTON AVE 320 1 2 1923 8,712 2 Y 2
WASHINGTON AVE 426 2 3 1974 12,342 2 , 2
WATCH ST 270 1 2 1977 2,644 2 2
WATRES PL 330 1 2 1985 5,000 1 Y 3
WELLINGTON AVE 391 1 2 1971 5,808 1 Y 1
WELLINGTON AVE 502 1 2 1970 13,914 2 Y 2
WELLINGTON AVE 523 2 3 1977 9,270 E77 1 2
WELLINGTON AVE 600 1 2 1985 19,140 1 1
WELLINGTON AVE 607 1 2 1921 4,307 3 Y 2
WELLINGTON AVE 675 1 3 1913 6,047 E87 2
WILCOX AVE 346 1 2 1991 8,712 1 1
ADDRESS Number Lawful Current Cony Lot Permit Ext Owner Twp
#Units #Units Year Area Issued Rat Occ? Use
WILCOX AVE 403 1 2 1984 7,772 E84 1 Y 1
WOODVIEW _ DR 11 0 1 1971 264,804 B68
WRIGHT AVE 610 2 3 1981 7,838 2 1
YARWOOD ST 366 1 2 1941 7,083 1 Y 2
YARWOOD ST 370 1 2 1915 — 5912 E59 Y 2
ABANDONED DWELLINGS
DIVISION ST 573 1 2 1935 5,892 E92 Y 3
LAUREL ST 493 1 2 1958 5,412 E58 Y 2
RAYMOND ST 354 1 3 1996 8,375 E28 Y 2
RAYMOND ST 528
---------- -- -- ---
STATE ST N 15 0 8 1994 1,320 079
VILLA ST 271 1 4 1990 14,005 E70 4
.
LEGEND FOR ILLEGAL UNITS REPORT
ADDRESS Street
NUMBER Street Number
LAWFUL# UNITS Number of lawful dwelling units recognized by the city
CURRENT # UNITS Number of dwelling units currently on site
CONV DATE Estimated date the illegal unit(s)was/were added
LOT AREA Square footage of the lot
PERMIT ISSUED Permits issued by the city which verifies the legal
number of units, followed by year issued:
O=Occupancy permit
B=Building permit
E=Electrical permit
H=Heating permit
P=Plumbing permit
EXT RAT Rating of the exterior condition of the property by property maintenance staff:
1=No Violations
4=Major Violations
OWNER OCC Owner occupied property:
Y=Yes, N=No
6/28/96