## Facts

- Oak Park adopted a Historic Preservation Ordinance restricting demolition of landmark buildings and “contributing” structures in a historic district unless the owner obtained a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of Economic Hardship.
- John Zaruba bought a single-family home at 616 N. Kenilworth Avenue within the district for $227,500, intending to demolish it and use the lot for personal purposes.
- When Zaruba applied for a demolition permit, the Village advised that demolition required one of the ordinance certificates.
- Zaruba sought a Certificate of Appropriateness on the theory the house was not a contributing resource; the Historic Preservation Commission found it was contributing and denied the request. Zaruba did not pursue review of that denial.
- Zaruba then applied for a Certificate of Economic Hardship and presented evidence that rehabilitation would be expensive and would not yield a reasonable economic return.
- Evidence at the economic-hardship hearing conflicted: Zaruba offered high rehabilitation estimates (up to about $253,000), while other testimony supported substantially lower repair costs; witnesses also described the house as structurally sound but in disrepair.
- A real estate broker testified the home would sell for less “as is,” but after rehabilitation might sell for about $300,000.
- The Commission denied the economic-hardship certificate, finding Zaruba overstated costs by including nonessential items, failed to show inability to obtain a reasonable economic return or reasonable use without demolition, and that any hardship was partly self-imposed due to overpaying and delaying repairs.
- The Village Board adopted the Commission’s findings and denied the Certificate of Economic Hardship.
- On administrative review, the circuit court reversed, reasoning the Commission should not have considered “self-imposed” hardship absent proof of an intent to evade the ordinance.

## Issues

1. Whether the Village’s denial of a Certificate of Economic Hardship was against the manifest weight of the evidence under Illinois administrative review standards.
2. Whether the Commission could consider “self-imposed” hardship as part of the economic-hardship determination without proof of bad faith intent to circumvent the ordinance.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the circuit court and reinstated the Village’s denial of the Certificate of Economic Hardship.
- The court held the denial was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the record supported findings that the structure was rehabilitatable and that Zaruba did not prove economic hardship under the ordinance criteria.
- The court held the Commission permissibly considered whether the alleged hardship was self-created, including Zaruba’s above-market purchase and delay in repairs.
- The court emphasized that under manifest-weight review it would not reweigh conflicting evidence or substitute its judgment for the administrative fact-finder’s credibility and cost determinations.

## Legal Principles

- Under manifest-weight review, an administrative decision is overturned only when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident; courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility.
- A local preservation ordinance may condition demolition of a contributing structure on proof of economic hardship measured by factors including fair market value effects, structural soundness and rehabilitatability, economic feasibility of rehabilitation and reuse, and cost considerations.
- An administrative body may treat self-created economic hardship as relevant to whether an owner has established entitlement to an exception or relief, without requiring proof of subjective bad faith.
- Where competing rehabilitation-cost and resale-value evidence exists, the administrative body may credit conservative estimates and discount inflated or discretionary items when deciding whether a reasonable economic return is achievable without demolition.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reinstated the Village’s refusal to grant an economic-hardship certificate because the record supported the Commission’s findings that the house was structurally sound, rehabilitation was feasible, Zaruba failed to prove denial would deprive him of reasonable use or return, and any hardship was partly attributable to his own purchase and conduct; the circuit court erred by substituting its judgment for the administrative decision under the manifest-weight standard.


Zaruba v. Village of Oak Park, 296 Ill. App. 3d 614, 695 N.E.2d 510 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)