Kane judge could decide McIlvaine case in October
A judge will hear arguments Oct, 14 on whether fines should be reinstated against a St. Charles homeowner for violating an agreement to clean up his property.
Cliff McIlvaine, who was first issued a building permit in 1975 for an addition to his home, also has sued the city, seeking more than $30,000 in damages from when the city installed a conventional asphalt roof instead of McIlvaine's super-insulated design.
McIlvaine's case, which has been litigated since fall 2010, was in Kane County court Tuesday where Judge David Akemann set a briefing schedule for attorneys.
McIlvaine reached an agreement in April to put the finishing touches on his project on the 600 block of Prairie Street, clean up his property and erect a storage facility to house construction materials.
McIlvaine's attorney, Phil Piscopo, said his client on Aug. 11 completed cleanup of construction materials on the site that were required to be removed by the end of July.
"My client contends it has been (cleaned up). The city contends it hasn't," Piscopo said, adding he believes there is not a deadline to build the storage facility.
"I believe they're trying to stretch the agreed order to say something it doesn't say," Piscopo said. "It's disappointing. Mr. McIlvaine has done his best to cooperate with the city and this is the response we get."
After the city sued McIlvaine in late 2010 to inspect his project, the two sides reached and agreement for him to wrap up the project by September 2012. But McIlvaine missed numerous deadlines and was jailed for two weeks when he refused to connect to the city water supply.
A judge in May 2013 ruled the city could take over certain aspects of the project and the city installed an asphalt roof.
McIlvaine sued the city seeking more than $30,000 in damages for removing super-insulated fiberglass McIlvaine had planned to incorporate into a custom roof.
The city wants a judge to dismiss that lawsuit.
"Nothing in the repair order or the court's ruling limited or dictated the nature or scope of the city's repair of the roof, the city's method of remediating the dangerous condition of the roof or the type of roof the city could install," city attorneys wrote in the motion to dismiss.
It was unclear if Akemann was going to make a decision Oct. 14 or take the matter under advisement and rule on a future date.