Case Law: County Building Permit

County building permit obtained by plaintiffs in December 1989 did not extend to the property plaintiffs acquired after the permit was issued.

The Illinois Appellate Court, 2d District, has affirmed a ruling by Kendall County Circuit Judge James M. Wilson. Plaintiffs HWK Inc. and others filed a complaint to prevent Kendall County from prohibiting the installation of a portable cement plant. The Circuit Court, after a bench trial, entered judgment in favor of Kendall County.

In December 1989, HWK applied for a building permit to install footings for a portable cement plant on the southern portion of property in Kendall County and a portable asphalt plant on the northern portion. At the time, the property was zoned M-2, heavy industrial district. The permit was approved by the county on Dec. 5, 1989. After HWK began construction on the project, the county halted the job. The county said that a permit lapses if a substantial start is not made within six months of its being issued. The county also stated that the property was zoned M-2, while cement plants come under M-3 zoning as a result of action taken by the county in July 1990. The county also determined that the construction was taking place on a site purchased after the plaintiffs obtained the building permit.

The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs did not comply with building permit regulations. The court determined that because the building permit was never applied for, and the existing permit was never amended to include the property purchased later, that judgment should be in favor of the county. The appeals court affirmed. The court said that although the plaintiffs were familiar with the permit process, they did not apply for a permit on the adjacent parcel that was purchased after the original permit was issued.

The court said that the plaintiffs, by their own admission, had no contact with county officials for nearly a year after obtaining the original permit other than to notify them that they were not going to build an asphalt plant on the northern portion of the originally purchased property. “In other words, they were utterly lacking in assurances from the county that proceeding to install a cement plant on the subsequently purchased property would be permitted,” the court said.

Therefore, the court said, the building permit acquired by the plaintiffs in December 1989 did not extend, nor was it applicable, to the property acquired by the plaintiffs after the issuance of the building permit.

HWK Inc., et al. v. County of Kendall, No. 2-92-1134. Justice Michael J. Colwell wrote the court’s opinion with Justices George W. Unverzagt and Alfred E. Woodward concurring. Released Sept. 23, 1993. (9 pages)