City of West Chicago, Illinois

Where History and Progress Meet

Make A Payment

Proposed Greenhouse Current Project Status & FAQ

By

Artboard_CityHall

Current Project Status

 

The City continues efforts to assist the property owners to bring the proposed Greenhouse structure into compliance with the nationally recognized Building Codes so that a building permit may be issued. The following is an update of the current project status as of January 11, 2024.

 

  • October 18, 2023: Since the structure was built beyond the scope of the approved permit, the Administrative Law Judge directed the owners to provide stamped architectural plans showing all completed work on the proposed greenhouse by December 20th and to secure a new permit by that date.
  • November 15, 2023: The City again clarified that it is not seeking and has never sought to have the whole structure demolished. The City is only requiring that the structure built, which the Judge found was a gross deviation from the approved plan in the December 1, 2020 permit, is structurally sound, and meets the regulations detailed in the nationally recognized Building Codes.
  • December 11, 2023: For the first time since the Judge’s order of October 18, 2023, an architect contacted City representatives and showed them preliminary plans; staff answered their questions and offered to continue the dialogue as needed. No documents were left with City staff to review at that time.
  • January 3, 2024: The property owners provided an incomplete submittal of the documents required in the October 18, 2023 Order. The City’s third-party reviewer completed an expedited evaluation to determine if the structure complied with the Codes and detailed any remaining issues of non-compliance. A first round of comments for the plan review were provided.

How does an applicant get an approved permit?

To obtain a building permit, a complete Residential Building Permit Application must be submitted to the City, along with accurate supporting documentation, so that the City can ensure it complies with the Codes. The detailed permit process is available on the City website. This process is the same for all residential building projects for which a permit is required.

What if a property owner wants to make a change to a plan that was initially approved?

Changes to an approved plan are allowed, but an updated plan must be submitted before any work begins. The Building Inspector will use this updated plan to ensure that the completed work complies with the newly approved plans. Essentially, no improvements can be approved after an inspection without the completed work complying with an approved plan as part of the Building Permit Application.

What if a property owner does work beyond an initially approved plan?

Once all the necessary documents are submitted and the City approves a plan, it is the responsibility of the property owner to construct the structure in accordance with that approved plan. This protects against unpermitted and/or unsafe structures from being constructed within the City.

Sometimes, property owners unintentionally go beyond the initially approved plans. That unapproved work may or may not be observed at the time of an inspection, as an inspector is only expected to review work that is completed as part of the approved plans.

If work does go beyond the original scope identified within the approved plans, the property owner is required to update their plans to match the completed work. If the additional work complies with the applicable codes, the new plans may be approved. If it does not comply, the property owner must provide details on how the work performed beyond the initially approved plan will be modified to comply with the applicable codes.

What does it mean to have an approved inspection?

An approved inspection means that the completed work matches the approved plans submitted as part of the Building Permit Application. All inspections noted as approved must be tied to an approved plan; there are no field changes or work that is approved without it being linked to a document in the file. This process, which is used by virtually every Illinois municipality, is used so that the file contains all approved components of projects, for the protection of both the current and future property owners.

At this stage, why have so many new items been found not in compliance with the approved plans?

Many issues raised by the third-party reviewer after evaluating the submitted architectural plans overlap with concerns City staff already noted, but with more details. Other issues could not be identified without the benefit of the as-built architectural plans. These code concerns must be addressed to ensure the project complies with the nationally recognized Building Codes.

Consistent with the Judge’s previous determination, the submitted as-built architectural plans deviate significantly from the initially approved plans, as one can see by examining both documents.

Why is the City “picking on” these property owners?

These property owners, like anyone else in the City seeking to construct a structure requiring a permit, are being treated the same. Staff consulted with local government professionals and construction industry experts to review the City’s actions in this Administrative Adjudication Case. The process and protocols used by City staff are consistent with municipal code compliance across the country. The insinuation that City Officials are unfairly targeting a community member by enforcing nationally applied safety standards is simply inaccurate and obscures the facts of the case. The property owners are required to comply with the permit they applied for and were issued and to ensure that the structure built complies with nationally recognized Building Codes.

City Officials have a responsibility to enforce Code, and they do this without taking into consideration who the violator is, to ensure all work is done properly and safely for the current and future property owners and visitors.

Why are City Elected Officials unwilling to meet with the property owners to discuss the project?

Many concerned with the City’s actions have requested that City Appointed and Elected Officials meet with the property owners to hear their story. There seems to be a belief that hearing the property owners’ narrative would be sufficient to allow any code violations to remain; this is not the case and, in fact, opens the City and the property owners to significant legal exposure. While the City can empathize with individual frustrations with the process, that does not change the need to uphold safety standards and comply with applicable codes.

Furthermore, City Elected Officials are advised by legal counsel not to comment on issues that are subject to active litigation. By avoiding public statements on ongoing legal proceedings, officials help maintain the integrity of the judicial process, ensuring that legal matters are decided by Judges, based on evidence and legal arguments, rather than public opinion or political influence. This commitment to neutrality serves to uphold the rule of law and safeguards the rights of all parties involved.

I’m confused, didn’t the City require the structure be demolished?

Like many local governments, the City uses standard forms and language across a variety of uses. While this can streamline most situations, occasionally it creates confusion. On September 29th, the City provided a standard Notice of Violation of the Code which stated that the property owners were in violation of Chapter 4, Article I, Section 4-1(h)(12b), and they, “…failed to obtain a subsequent permit after a period of 30 days following the expiration of a permit, and that all structures or portions thereof needed to be removed and the site returned to its original condition.”

Without context, one could understandably believe that this is ordering the structure be torn down; however, the application of the language is more precise. For example, if you do electrical work and then drywall over it such that an inspector cannot look to ensure it meets Code, you may have to remove portions of the drywall (demolish portions thereof) to reveal the work done so the inspection can occur.

Staff agrees that this language can be confusing, which is why the City and its Representatives have made it a point to publicly assure the property owners on multiple occasions, including to the Judge, that the City is not seeking demolition of the whole structure. Despite the numerous public and private proclamations, the property owners persist in this allegation. In fact, in the past 25 years, the City has never ordered the demolition of a private structure.

Why doesn’t the City just let the owner finish the proposed greenhouse without any further requirements?

The as-built construction drawings are legally required by the City to verify whether the work was completed in compliance with the nationally recognized Building Codes and, in fact, is safe.  With this knowledge, combined with the concerns already published by City staff, there is significant liability to the City and the property owner, such that the City cannot abandon its obligation to ensure that this structure is completed in compliance with Code.

Perhaps just as important, there is such public awareness of this situation that it would set a dangerous precedent to allow objective code enforcement to be influenced by public sentiment, without regard to the implications of constructing a structure that is not in compliance. The nationally recognized Building Codes are in place to ensure internet surveys, petitions, and social media do not degrade the safety standards applied in all neighborhoods and in local governments across the country.

The City is now requiring the property owners to provide stamped architectural drawings, is that even legal?

The City applies discretion and care in helping property owners, most of whom voluntarily come into compliance after receiving a Notice of Violation and nearly all comply before a hearing occurs. After the property owners were unwilling to voluntarily provide the appropriate construction documentation for the structure that was built without the required permit, it became necessary for a third party to mediate the situation. The unwillingness of the property owners to comply with the applicable codes have necessitated the issuance of a Notice to Appear and a local Administrative Adjudication Case started.

Although, the City can often accept working drawings that describe the character of the proposed work as stated within the City’s Code. In this instance, the working drawings provided did not include sufficient detail, based on what was actually constructed. In fact, the work completed is so far beyond the original scope approved in the initial Building Permit Application, that as-built plans are needed to determine what is and what is not completed in compliance with the Codes.

Section 107 of the International Building Code, states that “…Where special conditions exist, the Building Official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional.”  Work done without a permit and not in accordance with approved plans most certainly fall within the special conditions designation.

So, not only is this requirement legal, it is necessary.

Why couldn’t the City immediately approve the permit once stamped architectural drawings were submitted?

On October 18th, the Administrative Law Judge directed the owners to provide stamped architectural plans showing all work that was completed on the proposed greenhouse by December 20th and to secure a permit by that date.

On December 11th, for the first time, an architect contacted the City to discuss preliminary plans.  Staff answered the architect’s questions and offered to continue the dialogue as needed.  No documents were left with City staff to review at that time. Then on December 13th, a formal submittal of the architectural plans was made. With only one week prior to the December 20th hearing, and at the demand of the property owners, the City paid a third party to complete a review of these plans. The City paid an additional fee to expedite the review which is typically the responsibility of the requesting property owners; however, the City absorbed these expenses, again demonstrating the City’s willingness to work with the property owners.

As part of the expedited review, the third party reviewer found more than 30 items of concern regarding the structure which require action. Additionally, on December 20th, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order that specifically required the property owners to detail how they will address each of the concerns raised by the independent third-party reviewer to bring the structure into compliance with the Codes. This work was to be turned in on or before January 3, 2024; however, the property owners responded with an incomplete submittal.  The City’s third-party reviewer evaluated the submittal and detailed any remaining issues of non-compliance.

Is the City considering changing any processes after this experience?

The City’s Building Permit Applications will be modified to ensure that applicants know that the total value of the proposed improvement(s) needs to be included.  This information is also critical because Township Assessors rely on it when valuing improvements for property tax purposes.

Additionally, staff will propose to the City Council that language from the National Building Code be included into the City’s Code to clarify that the Building Official has the authority to require architectural drawings from a licensed professional when there is insufficient detail provided by an applicant.

Where do we go from here?

At the December hearing, at which time the property owners’ attorney was unexpectantly unavailable, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order that required the property owners to detail how they will address each of the concerns raised in the third-party review. The property owners then provided an incomplete submittal on the due date of January 3, 2024. The City’s third-party reviewer conducted an expedited review to determine where the Codes were met and detailed any remaining issues of non-compliance.

It is the City’s hope that the property owners will adequately address each of the areas of non-compliance so that a building permit may be issued to allow them to complete the improvements necessary to gain an Approved Final Inspection for the property and end this Administrative Adjudication Case.