Sporcich v. Village of Arlington Heights

2024 IL App (1st) 231140-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: March 14, 2024
• Docket: 1-23-1140
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2024 IL App (1st) 231140-U FOURTH DIVISION Order filed March 14, 2024

No. 1-23-1140 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

MARK SPORCICH, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Cook Plaintiff-Appellant, ) County. ) v. ) No. 22 CH 3335 ) VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, VILLAGE OF ) ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ADMINISTRATIVE ) ADJUDICATION, VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ) DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY, and ) DANIEL HANLON, ) Honorable ) Clare J. Quish, Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Martin and Ocasio concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: We affirmed the decision of the circuit court which affirmed a decision of an administrative hearing officer finding a building code violation and imposing a fine where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence or that the hearing officer violated his due process rights in the conduct of the hearing. No. 1-23-1140

¶2 The plaintiff, Mark Sporich, acting pro se, appeals from the order of the circuit court

affirming an administrative adjudication of the Village of Arlington Heights (Village) which found

that he violated the Village’s maintenance code by failing to protect the soffits and install gutters on

a house he owned in the Village and assessing a $500 fine. The complaint for administrative

adjudication was filed by the Village’s Department of Building and Life Safety. On appeal, the

plaintiff raises five issues:

“I. Whether the circuit court erred in its order entered on June 26, 2023, by failing to find

that the adjudication hearing officer initially erred in his ruling due to Sporcich's properly

completed permit extension.

II. Whether the circuit court erred in its order entered on June 26, 2023, by failing to find

that the adjudication hearing officer initially erred in his ruling despite Sporcich's continued

compliance with additional requests and burdens imposed by the Village of Arlington

Heights between October 12th, 2021, and March 8th, 2022, despite the existence of a valid

permit and extension.

III. Whether the circuit court erred in its order entered on June 26, 2023, by basing its analysis

and conclusion on errors in the background statements that contradict testimony and

evidence in the record.

IV. Whether the circuit court erred in its order entered on June 26, 2023, by denying Marc

Sporcich's due process rights and right to a fair hearing due to the administrative review

officer's refusal to accept additional evidence and testimony from Sporcich during the

October 12th, 2021 and March 8th, 2022 hearings.

-2- No. 1-23-1140

V. Whether the circuit court erred in its order entered on June 26, 2023, by failing to consider

the allegations of misconduct by village employees involved in the administrative

proceedings, including the Village of Arlington Heights' Department of Building and Life

Safety and the adjudication hearing officer, Daniel Hanlon. The alleged misconduct, such as

bias, procedural improprieties, and failure to adhere to legal standards, directly impacted the

fairness and integrity of the administrative process.”

¶3 Although the Plaintiff addresses his arguments to the decision of the circuit court, when

reviewing an order of the circuit court on administrative review, we review the decision of the

administrative agency not the circuit court. Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of

Revenue, 236 Ill. 2d 368, 386 (2010). As a consequence, the plaintiff’s arguments can be

summarized as two basic contentions: (1) the findings of the hearing officer were against the

manifest weight of the evidence and (2) the hearing officer violated the plaintiff's due process rights

by limiting his arguments and failing to consider relevant evidence. For the reasons that follow, we

affirm the decision of the circuit court.

¶4 On September 8, 2021, a building inspector for the Village sent a letter to the plaintiff stating

that the house he owned on Haddow Avenue was in violation of the Village’s maintenance

ordinances sections 26-101 (304.2) and 26-101 (304.7). See Village of Arlington Heights Municipal

Code (Code) § 26-101 (revised March 1, 2020) (adopting the 2018 Edition of the International

Property Maintenance Code); see also 2018 International Property Maintenance Code §§ 304.2

(protective treatment), 304.7 (roofs and drainage). According to the letter, the plaintiff’s house was

inspected and found to be lacking protective covering for the fascia and soffits and missing gutters

and downspouts. The letter continued stating:

-3- No. 1-23-1140

“Please be aware that failure to comply by September 20, 2021 will result in the Village

pursuing a legal remedy. Please be advised that permit # 19-65 has expired. No

correspondence has been received regarding the permit extension since May 2021. As a

result, permit # 19-65 will be closed.”

On September 22, 2021, the Village filed a complaint against the plaintiff alleging the same

violations.

¶5 On October 12, 2021, an administrative hearing officer conducted a hearing on the Village’s

complaint. The transcript of the initial portion of that hearing is missing from the record. The

plaintiff submitted a supplement to the record, acknowledging that a portion of the record was

missing and supplementing the record with a bystander’s report for the missing portion. The circuit

court granted the plaintiff’s motion to supplement the record with the agreement of the parties.

¶6 According to the supplemental record, the plaintiff’s original architect and general contractor

stopped work on a remodeling project at the subject building. It took several months to terminate

the construction contract. The plaintiff admitted that “there are numerous potential violations if one

does not take into account that [sic] the obvious fact that the property is a construction site.” The

plaintiff testified that he had been told multiple times that the building permit for the site was active.

¶7 According to the transcript, the plaintiff stated that he had some email communications from

the Village. The hearing officer asked “Does one of them say you have a permit extension?” The

plaintiff responded “I don’t believe it’s that cut and clear.” The plaintiff testified that he was told

that the Village was waiting for revised plans. However, when asked if he provided the plans, the

plaintiff responded, “They didn’t give me a deadline on the revised plans.” The plaintiff further

added that the remodeling project began in May 2019, but was never completed and that he was

-4- No. 1-23-1140

suing the original contractor. The hearing officer noted that photographs provided by the Village

showed a house wrapped in Tyvek with exposed fascia and soffits. The plaintiff agreed that the

fascia was exposed but added that it needed to be removed because the builder did not apply it

properly.

¶8 Michael Boyle, the Village’s permits supervisor, stated that he received the plaintiff’s permit

extension request on May 14, 2021. Boyle did not process the permit extension because he was

anticipating updated plans. Boyle added that he spoke to the plaintiff on the phone and told him that

he was going to hold processing of the extension request until the Village received the plaintiff's

plans.

¶9 The plaintiff argued that he was making progress on completing the construction and stated

that he had his plans revised and they were “ready to be submitted.” The hearing officer clarified

asking, “But you haven’t submitted those yet”; and the plaintiff responded, “No. I could do that if

necessary.”

¶ 10 When called to testify, Jorge Torres, the Village’s building inspector, stated:

“They would recommend – I would recommend – if we give them a one-month

extension for full submittal of the building plans, approves submittal of the building plans,

drawings. We’ve been waiting since May of this year. If them – if they submit plans and –

and they’re approved by the building department, then we could – we could remove the fine

that we – I’d recommend imposing today.”

¶ 11 Following the hearing, the hearing officer entered an order assessing a $750 fine against the

plaintiff and continuing the matter until November 9, 2021, for submission of approved plans and a

motion to vacate the fine, stating:

-5- No. 1-23-1140

“Well, I’m gonna enter a finding·of liable today.·I am gonna take the Village’s suggestion

though to make that plan subject to a·motion to vacate.·So basically, as long as you and the

Village aren’t proceeding forward to an end and the Village says yes, they’ve done what·we

need them to do, I will come to you in the next month in November assuming those -- the

plans have been submitted, approved, we will talk about whether I vacate the fine.”

¶ 12 On November 9, 2021, an unidentified Village employee testified that the plaintiff’s plans

had been submitted but not approved, and he requested additional time for Village review. The

hearing officer continued the matter until January 11, 2022.

¶ 13 On January 11, 2022, Torres testified that the plaintiff’s plans had not been approved. The

plaintiff stated that he was waiting for a response from the Village. The case was passed so that

Torres and the plaintiff could discuss the matter. When the case was recalled, Torres stated that there

were some plan revisions being requested, and the hearing officer continued the case to March 8,

2022.

¶ 14 On March 8, 2022, Torres testified that the plaintiff’s property was “not in compliance yet.”

The plaintiff responded that the revised plans were with his architect and that he should have plans

drawn up “by next week probably.” After further discussion, the plaintiff stated that he had received

some comments from the plan reviewer and sent them to his architect. The plaintiff added “I can

show you the emails I have.” The hearing officer responded “No, I trust what you say.” The plaintiff

argued that the delay in the construction project was attributable to the Village’s refusal to perform

a framing inspection. Torres responded that the Village enforcement officers were not home

inspectors and would not inspect the framing until mechanical and plumbing had been installed.

¶ 15 Near the end of the hearing the following colloquy occurred:

-6- No. 1-23-1140

“THE COURT: We’ve argued this

MARK SPORCICH: -- they haven’t

THE COURT: We’ve argued this back -- you’ve argued this back and forth multiple times

and you’re gonna keep repeating yourself and everybody in this room is gonna have to sit

there and listen to you repeat yourself to me. I understand your argument.·I do I get it.

Go·ahead.

MARK SPORCICH: Yeah. I -- I called yesterday and talked to George and asked him if we

could defer this one month because it had plans, and for some reason he wanted to drag me

in here again It feels like harassment.

THE COURT: I’m granting motion to vacate in part and denying in part.”

¶ 16 Ultimately, the hearing officer granted the motion to vacate in part, treating it as a motion to

reduce the fine. The hearing officer imposed a $500 fine for the failure to provide gutters and soffit

protection.

¶ 17 On April 12, 2022, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the circuit court for administrative review

of the hearing officer’s decision. After considering the parties’ briefs and arguments, the circuit court

affirmed the decision of the hearing officer finding the plaintiff liable for two building code

violations and imposing a $500 fine. This appeal followed.

¶ 18 We first address the question of whether the administrative adjudication and resulting fine

are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The hearing officer did not make written findings

of fact, but implicit in his order are two factual findings: (1) the building did not have gutters or

soffit protection at the time of the inspection, and (2) the plaintiff did not have a valid extension of

his building permit.

-7- No. 1-23-1140

¶ 19 The plaintiff’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the administrative

adjudication appears to be based on the argument that he had a valid extension of his permit and that

Boyle’s testimony to the contrary was inconsistent. We find no merit to the argument.

¶ 20 Division 31.1 of article 11 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/art. 11 div. 31.1 (West

2022)) provides a mechanism for enforcement of building code violations. Section 11-31.1-11 of

the Code adopts the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2022)) as the

method of review for decisions by a hearing officer in building code enforcement proceedings.

¶ 21 Section 3-110 of the Administrative Review Law provides that: “The findings and

conclusions of the administrative agency on questions of fact shall be held to be prima facie true and

correct.” 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2022). On administrative review, courts will not reweigh the

evidence or substitute their judgment for that of the agency. Miller v. Board of Trustees of Oak Lawn

Police Pension Fund, 2019 IL App (1st) 172967, ¶ 52. Findings of fact will be reversed only if they

are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Beggs v. Board of Education of Murphysboro

Community Unit School District No. 186, 2016 IL 120236, ¶ 50

¶ 22 We turn first to the question of whether the plaintiff’s building had gutters and soffit

protection as required by the Village’s Code. Photographic evidence contained in the record clearly

shows that the plaintiff’s building lacked gutters and had unfinished fascia and soffits. Further the

Village’s building inspector testified that the building lacked gutters and soffits and was not in

compliance. Torres testified that, as of March 8, 2022, the property was still not in compliance. The

plaintiff does not argue that there were gutters or protected soffits in place on the date of the alleged

violation. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s implicit findings that the building

lacked gutters and that the soffits were unprotected were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

-8- No. 1-23-1140

¶ 23 As to the issue of whether the plaintiff had a building permit in effect at the time of the

alleged violation, the hearing officer heard testimony that the plaintiff had only submitted a request

for a permit extension prior to the violation. The hearing officer also heard evidence that the permit

extension was on hold while the Village waited for revised plans. The plaintiff points to an email

which stated that Michael Boyle, the Village’s permit supervisor, would “process” the extension

application. However, the plaintiff has identified nothing in the record which would indicate that the

application was ever approved, or the extension granted. Further, at the hearing on October 12, 2021,

the plaintiff admitted he had not yet submitted the revised plans necessary for an extension. At the

March 8, 2022, hearing, the plaintiff admitted that the latest revised plans had not been submitted

but were still with his architect. The record in this case is clear that at no time relevant did the

plaintiff have a valid permit.

¶ 24 Furthermore, as defendants argue, the Village’s ordinances contain no exception to the

maintenance requirements for a building which is the subject of a valid building permit. We have

reviewed the Village’s ordinances and find no such exception, nor has the plaintiff cited any

authority for the proposition that his compliance with the maintenance ordinances would be excused

if his building permit was valid.

¶ 25 Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s implicit finding

that the plaintiff’s building was in violation of section 26-101 of the Village Code was against the

manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 26 The plaintiff also contends that the hearing officer violated his due process rights in the

manner in which he conducted the hearings. The plaintiff argues generally that there was misconduct

and bias demonstrated by the hearing officer and Village employees. However, the plaintiff only

-9- No. 1-23-1140

identifies two specific instances where the hearing officer is alleged to have violated his due process

rights

¶ 27 First, the plaintiff argues that the hearing officer deprived him of the right to present evidence

by stating “I trust what you say” when the plaintiff offered to present emails from his architect. The

plaintiff argues that “the emails that [he] was not permitted to produce would have provided material

proof to both courts to question the credibility of witnesses and change the outcome.” We find no

support for this contention in the record. The hearing officer’s comment only related to the limited

question of whether the plaintiff had contacted his architect, and the hearing officer simply stated

that he would accept the plaintiff’s assertion without documentary evidence.

¶ 28 Due process is a flexible concept and the procedures employed by an administrative agency

need only include such procedural protections as fundamental principles of justice and the particular

situation demands. M.F. Booker v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 2016 IL App (1st)

151151, ¶ 57 (citing Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76,

92 (1992)). The procedures employed need not mimic a judicial proceeding, but on administrative

review a reviewing court has a duty to ensure that a fair and impartial procedure was used. Id.

Nothing the plaintiff said suggested that he intended to introduce additional emails or that those

emails would be somehow relevant to the core issues in this case, i.e., whether there were gutters

and soffits on the house and whether the plaintiff had made sufficient progress toward rectifying the

violation to excuse the imposition of a fine. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s

comment deprived the plaintiff of due process.

¶ 29 The plaintiff also argues that the hearing officer violated his due process rights during the

hearing on his motion to vacate the fine when this exchange occurred:

- 10 - No. 1-23-1140

THE COURT: We’ve argued this back -- you’ve argued this back and forth multiple times

and you’re gonna keep repeating yourself and everybody in this room is gonna have to sit

there and listen to you repeat yourself to me. I understand your argument.· I do I get it.

Go·ahead.”

¶ 30 After reviewing the record as a whole, we find no due process violation in the hearing

officer’s remarks. The plaintiff was indeed repeating arguments he had made earlier. The hearing

officer was under no obligation to allow him to continue. The plaintiff has cited no authority for the

proposition that litigants have an unfettered right to present repetitive arguments. Due process

demands only a meaningful opportunity to be heard, not the right to be heard in whatever manner a

litigant wishes. See Trettenero v. Police Pension Fund of City of Aurora, 333 Ill. App. 3d 792, 799

(2002). Nor do we find any generalized due process violation after examining the record as a whole.

Accordingly, we reject the plaintiff’s due process arguments.

¶ 31 Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that the hearing officer’s finding that the

plaintiff’s building lacked gutters and soffit protection was not against the manifest weight of the

evidence. We further conclude that the hearing officer did not violate the plaintiff's due process

rights by limiting his ability to argue his case. We, therefore, affirm the order of the circuit court

which affirmed the administrative adjudication of the Village’s finding that the plaintiff violated the

Village’s Code by failing to protect the soffits and install gutters on a house he owned and assessing

a $500 fine.

¶ 32 Affirmed.

- 11 -