City of Urbana, Ill., Corp. v. Platinum Grp. Props., LLC
| Decision Date | 09 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-16-0497,4-16-0497 |
| Citation | 2017 IL App (4th) 160497 -U |
| Parties | THE CITY OF URBANA, ILLINOIS, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PLATINUM GROUP PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Champaign County
Honorable John R. Kennedy, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: The circuit court did not err by finding defendant's three buildings violated the city's property maintenance code, the court did err in imposing fines, and the circuit clerk's imposition of an $118,425 surcharge was void.
¶ 2 In June 2014, plaintiff, the City of Urbana, a municipal corporation (City), filed a complaint for property maintenance code violations against defendant, Platinum Group Properties, LLC, for three of its buildings located on adjacent properties in the City. The City amended its complaint twice thereafter, and the bench trial on the second amended complaint commenced in November 2014. The last witness's testimony was heard in August 2015, and the parties filed written memoranda in support of their respective positions. In May 2016, the Champaign County circuit court announced its decision in open court, finding defendant's three buildings violated numerous ordinances. The court fined defendant a total of $473,700 and ordered it to pay court costs as well.
¶ 3 Defendant appeals, contending the circuit court erred by (1) permitting the City to disregard the ordinances related to (a) the issuance of failure to comply tickets and (b) the granting of deadline extensions, (2) finding the City proved the structural violations by a preponderance of the evidence, and (3) imposing fines. Defendant also challenges the circuit court clerk's imposition of an $118,425 surcharge. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand the cause with directions.
¶ 6 This case involves three separate properties located in Urbana, Illinois, and owned by defendant. Paul Zerrouki and his wife, Nicolette Negrau, are the principal owners of defendant. The properties at issue are commonly known as 1302 East Silver Street (1302 Silver), 1304 East Silver Street (1304 Silver), and 1401 East Silver Street (1401 Silver). Each of the three properties contains a two-story, multifamily building with brick exterior, which were built around the late fifties. The three building are almost identical and contain 11 or 12 apartments each. The second-floor apartments were accessible by concrete steps leading to concrete walkways along the exterior of the building.
¶ 8 In July 2011, the city council adopted a new chapter 5 of the Urbana Code of Ordinances. Article IX of chapter 5 is known as the Property Maintenance Code (City Property Maintenance Code). In section 5-81 of the City Property Maintenance Code (eff. July 18, 2011), the City adopted the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code "with the additions, insertions, deletions, and changes prescribed in Section 5-83." On October 7, 2013, the city council amended provisions of section 5-83 of the City Property Maintenance Code. Except forprovision PM-304-10, all of the alleged code violations are contained in the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code. PM-304.10 of section 5-83 of the City Property Maintenance Code was not part of the city council's October 2013 amendments. The procedural provisions for addressing code violations are contained in section 5-83 of the City Property Maintenance Code. The city council's October 2013 amendment made changes to PM-106.4, PM-106.4.1, and PM-106.4.3, which are part of section 5-83 of the City Property Maintenance Code.
¶ 10 In a June 1, 2012, letter, Clay Baier, the City's housing inspector, notified defendant of a May 29, 2012, inspection of the three buildings and the code compliance matters discovered during the inspection. The defects listed were as follows: (1) areas of deteriorated and rusted structural steel were present in the exterior stairs, landings, and walkways; (2) displacement and cracking of brick veneer existed where the stairs intersected with the second-level walkways, indicating the walkways were moving away from the buildings; (3) columns were bowed out, which further indicated the second-level walkways were moving away from the buildings; and (4) the first-floor walkways were cracked, displaced, and sloped toward the building, which allowed water to flow back to the buildings and jeopardized the structural integrity of the buildings' foundations. The letter ordered defendant to have the defects evaluated by a licensed structural engineer and a copy of the engineer's report submitted to Baier's office by June 15, 2012. It also ordered any necessary repairs listed in the report to be completed no later than July 16, 2012. The letter further stated the work would require a building permit and referred defendant to Steve Cochran to obtain it. Moreover, it informed defendant to contact Baier's office once the repairs were completed for a reinspection. The letter also advised defendant of how to seek an extension and its right to an appeal. As to anextension, the letter stated the request must be made in writing within 10 days of receipt of the letter. Additionally, it stated, "[t]he Housing Inspector may issue a 'Failure to Comply Ticket' for failure to comply with any of the above set deadlines." Last, the letter indicated the possibility of a lawsuit and fines.
¶ 11 On June 15, 2012, Negrau requested a 90-day extension to obtain the engineer's evaluation. Baier denied the request but gave defendant until June 25, 2012, to provide the engineer's report. Defendant hired Charles Lozar to perform the evaluation, and the City hired Engineering Resources Associates, Inc. In an August 10, 2012, letter, Baier ordered defendant to make the necessary repairs stated in the Engineering Resource Associates, Inc., report and Lozar's June 24, 2012, written notes, as well as provide additional structural members to support the walkways, no later than September 15, 2012. In a later letter, Baier gave defendant until November 30, 2012, to complete the repairs.
¶ 12 In a January 25, 2013, letter, Baier notified defendant of interior code compliance matters at 1302 Silver and noted the repairs related to the June 2012 violations had not been completed. Defendant was given until February 26, 2013, to make the repairs. In separate letters that were both dated January 29, 2013, Baier notified defendant of interior code compliance matters at 1304 and 1401 Silver and pointed out the repairs related to the June 2012 violations had not been completed. With 1304 and 1401 Silver, defendant was given until March 1, 2013, to make the repairs.
¶ 13 In three separate letters dated February 27, 2013, John Schneider, the City's building safety division manager, gave defendant notice of the condemnation of all three buildings. The buildings had been inspected on February 22, 2013, pursuant to a complaint. The notice indicated the walkways were susceptible to failure and collapse due to the instability ofthe upper-level walkways, the stairs leading to those walkways, and the bricks underneath those walkways. The City ordered the buildings to be vacated by 5 p.m. on February 27, 2013, and the property secured by 4 p.m. on March 1, 2013. Defendant did not appeal the condemnation notices and promptly evacuated the buildings.
¶ 15 On May 7, 2013, Zerrouki applied for building permits for the three buildings. The application stated the total cost of improvements for each building was $13,000. On May 30, 2013, the City issued Zerrouki the three building permits. The permits noted to call Cochran prior to the commencement of work to discuss the needed inspections. The permits did not have an expiration date. In November 2013, Negrau sent Schneider an e-mail asking if she needed to file an extension for the building permits. Schneider replied, "Per section 105.5 of the 2009 International Building Code, no extension of a building permit is necessary." On May 21, 2014, the City revoked the building permits under section 105.5 of the City Building Code due to inactivity. The notice of permit revocation noted work on the three buildings had not taken place since on or before November 21, 2013.
¶ 16 On June 5, 2014, defendant again applied for building permits to perform the work required by the June 2012 notice of violations. Those permits were approved.
¶ 18 On June 11, 2014, the City filed its complaint for property maintenance code violations against defendant, alleging the violation of "PM-304.1.1." In October 2014, the City filed a first amended complaint, again generally referring to "PM-304.1.1." On November 3, 2014, the City filed its second amended complaint, which alleged violations of "PM 304.1.1," "PM 304.6," and "PM 304.10." In its prayer for relief for all three buildings, the City requestedthe circuit court to order defendant to remediate all violations within 60 days of the court's order. For 1302 and 1304 Silver, the City asked for a $15 per day fine for the period of June 1, 2012, to May 21, 2014, which the City calculated as a total fine of $10,785. The City also asked for a daily fine of "not less than $200 but not more than $750" for each day the properties were in violation from June 12, 2014, until the time the court finds defendant has remediated the code violations. For 1401 Silver, the City requested a $15 per day fine for the period of June 1, 2012, to June 12, 2014 which the City also calculated as a total fine of $10,785. It then prayed for a daily fine of "not less than $200 but...
To continue reading
Request your trial