In the Zone: Appellate Court Overturns ZBA’s Decision Concerning Special Use Permit for Clinic
An Illinois Appellate Court recently overturned a municipality's zoning determination that a property owner complied with the terms of a preexisting special use permit for the property. Rylatt v. Christensen
A doctor purchased a home that was subject to a preexisting special use permit (SUP) to allow a medical clinic (chiropractor) to operate as a home occupation, which included a variance to permit one nonresident of the home to work in the clinic. The doctor who purchased the property planned to operate a family planning clinic on the property. Initially, the city zoning official determined that the proposed business did not comply with the SUP because no employee would reside at the home so it could not qualify as a home occupation. After several discussions, the doctor stated that one of the clinic employees would reside at the property, and the City found the proposed use would comply with the SUP’s requirements.
A group of plaintiffs appealed the
zoning official’s determination, arguing the proposed clinic would negatively impact neighboring properties, and the City's ZBA held a hearing on that appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ZBA upheld the determination that the clinic
conformed with the SUP and found that none of plaintiffs had standing to
challenge the determination.
Plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit to challenge the ZBA's rulings. The trial court dismissed the case and upheld the ZBA's decision that plaintiffs had no standing and dismissed plaintiffs’ remaining claim that the ZBA violated state law.
On appeal, the Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs who resided within 550 feet of the clinic raised sufficient arguments about the potential impact of the clinic on his home to have standing to challenge the City's determination before the ZBA. However, the Appellate Court upheld the ZBA's finding that the other plaintiffs had no standing. The Appellate Court provided a detailed discussion of the factors used in determining standing in these type of cases, with a thorough analysis of the standing cases.
The Appellate Court also held that the ZBA erred in affirming the zoning determination that the clinic was consistent with the SUP’s terms. The Court expressed concerns that the original SUP was never produced, making it difficult to justify the City's detemination that its terms were complied with. Also, the Court determined that there was no evidence the doctor would work or live on property, unlike the previous property owner. The Court noted that there was a lot of information lacking with regard to the SUP and the proposed use, and the Court was skeptical about the City official's testimony about his interpretation of the City's code in making the determination.
As a result, the Appellate Court overturned the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal of the ZBA's determination and sent the case back to the trial court.
Post Authored by Dan Lev & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink