"[E]xpenses incurred at a time when the current zoning permits the intended use and when the property owner has no knowledge that an amendment to the ordinance is being considered are incurred in good-faith reliance on the issuance of a zoning certificate and a building permit and, if substantial, create a vested right." 1350 Lake Shore Associates, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 632; see Illinois Mason Contractors, Inc. v. City of Wheaton, 19 Ill. 2d 462 (1960); O'Connell Home Builders, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 99 Ill. App. 3d 1054 (1981); Mattson v. City of Chicago, 89 Ill. App. 3d 378 (1980). "It has been held, however, that expenses which a property owner incurs with knowledge that an amendatory ordinance, pursuant to which the intended use would not be permitted, is pending, are not incurred in good-faith reliance on the probability that a zoning certificate or a building permit will issue."

However, the latter case did not discuss the issue of proportionality of expenditures. Other cases have also not used a proportionality calculation when deciding whether expenditures were substantial. See, e.g., Illinois Mason Contractors, Inc. v. City of Wheaton, 19 Ill. 2d 462 (1960) (loan commitment of $50,000, a contract for work totaling $30,000, and expenditures of $5,600); People ex rel. Skokie Town House Builders, Inc. v. Village of Morton Grove, 16 Ill. 2d 183 (1959) (land purchased for $26,000, expenditures of $1,830); Fifteen Fifty North State Building Corp. v. City of Chicago, 15 Ill. 2d 408 (1958) ($105,000 architectural contract and $5,100 in expenses); O'Connell Home Builders, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 99 Ill. App. 3d 1054 (1981) ($12,000 architectural fee and $5,500 for tree removal); Mattson v. City of Chicago, 89 Ill. App. 3d 378 (1980) (demolition of plaintiffs home worth more than $40,000 and expenditures of $4,100); Deer Park Civic Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 347 Ill. App. 346 (1952) (land purchased for $41,000, contractual liabilities incurred of over $597,000, and extensive construction work performed). In these cases, the expenses were not compared to anything; they were declared to be substantial based upon the amount alone.

"Absent some evidence of illegality, a court will be satisfied that an executive decision was not arbitrary or capricious, and will not inquire further into the propriety of the reasoning behind the decision." Id.; See also Mattson v. Chicago, 89 Ill. Ap. 3d 378 (1980) ("[W]here performance of an official duty or act involves the exercise of discretion, the administrative action is not subject to review or control by mandamus.") (citing Kramer v. City of Chicago, 58 Ill. App. 3d 592, 599 (1978)). Accordingly, we will not substitute our judgment regarding whether installation of the chairlift violated the IBC.

18 have been considered substantial. See, e.g., Illinois Mason Contractors, Inc. v. City of Wheaton, 19 Ill. 2d 462, 465, 167 N.E.2d 216 (1960) ($30,000 contract for work to be done, purchase of $5,000 in construction materials, and a $3,250 loan commission); People ex rel. Skokie Town House Builders, Inc., 16 Ill. 2d at 191-92 ($26,000 for the purchase of the property and $1,830 in permit fees and sidewalk deposit); Constantine v. Village of Glen Ellyn, 217 Ill. App. 3d 4, 25, 575 N.E.2d 1363 (1991) ($70,100 purchase price of the property and $1,400 architect fee); O'Connell Home Builders, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 99 Ill. App. 3d 1054, 1061, 425 N.E.2d 1339 (1981) ($17,500 spent on architectural fees and tree removal service); Mattson v. City of Chicago, 89 Ill. App. 3d 378, 381, 411 N.E.2d 1002 (1980) (demolition of home valued at $40,000 plus $4,100 in demolition and architectural fees); Sgro v. Howarth, 54 Ill. App. 2d 1, 9-10, 203 N.E.2d 173 (1964) ($23,500 for the purchase of the property plus undisclosed permit fees). The difficulty with these cases, however, is that they only reference the amount of expenditures incurred and do not identify the total projected costs of the developments or provide a comparison of the expenditures to the projected development costs.

Our research has revealed countless decisions addressing whether the expenses incurred in those particular cases were substantial enough to give rise to a vested right. However, the majority of these cases list the expenditures and obligations incurred by the landowner and then reach a conclusion as to whether the amounts were substantial enough, without further analysis. See e.g.,Deer Park Civic Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 347 Ill.App. 346, 106 N.E.2d 823 (1952); People ex rel. Skokie Town House Builders, Inc. v. Village of Morton Grove, 16 Ill.2d 183, 157 N.E.2d 33 (1959); Illinois Mason Contractors, Inc. v. City of Wheaton, 19 Ill.2d 462, 167 N.E.2d 216 (1960); Mattson v. City of Chicago, 89 Ill.App.3d 378, 44 Ill.Dec. 636, 411 N.E.2d 1002 (1980). What is clear from our review of these cases is that there is no bright line rule for determining the substantiality of expenses incurred by a landowner in good faith reliance upon the issuance of a building permit.

No doubt, expenses incurred at a time when the current zoning permits the intended use and when the property owner has no knowledge that an amendment to the ordinance is being considered are incurred in good-faith reliance on the issuance of a zoning certificate and a building permit and, if substantial, create a vested right. See Illinois Mason Contractors, Inc. v. City of Wheaton, 19 Ill. 2d 462, 167 N.E.2d 216 (1960); O'Connell Home Builders, Inc., 99 Ill. App. 3d 1054; Mattson v. City of Chicago, 89 Ill. App. 3d 378, 411 N.E.2d 1002 (1980). It has been held, however, that expenses which a property owner incurs with knowledge that an amendatory ordinance, pursuant to which the intended use would not be permitted, is pending, are not incurred in good-faith reliance on the probability that a zoning certificate or a building permit will issue.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment awarding the plaintiff a writ of mandamus. See also Mattson v. City of Chicago, 89 Ill. App.3d 378, 411 N.E.2d 1002 (1980); Pioneer Trust Savings Bank v. County of Cook, 71 Ill.2d 510, 377 N.E.2d 21 (1978). In this case, unlike Cos, the plaintiff's plans never fully complied with the applicable ordinances.

the propriety of such variances was still pending on appeal. Wetherald proceeded to build at his own peril prior to a final resolution of the variance issues. See Petrosky v. Zoning Hearing Board (1979), 485 Pa. 501, 507, 402 A.2d 1385, 1388 (factor to consider in determining whether permit holder has vested right because of detrimental reliance by making improvements on property is that time period in which issuance of permit could have been appealed had passed when improvements begun); see also Bird v. Delaware Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission (1981), Ind. App., 416 N.E.2d 482, 490 (severe remedy of removal of assembled structures on property may be mandated in some circumstances involving zoning ordinances); B. G. Construction Corp. v. Board of Appeals (1955), 309 N.Y. 730, 731-32, 128 N.E.2d 423, 424 (construction company not entitled to permit to continue operations where harmful to public merely because it invested in facility under valid permit issued by municipality); cf. Mattson v. Chicago (1980), 89 Ill. App.3d 378, 381, 44 Ill. Dec. 636, 638, 411 N.E.2d 1002, 1004 (where landowner substantially changed position in good faith in justifiable reliance on probability of building permit's issuance, vested right acquired to use property for desired purpose, although zoning classifications subsequently introduced); Peru v. Querciagrossa (1979), 73 Ill. App.3d 1040, 1042, 30 Ill.Dec. 123, 125, 392 N.E.2d 778, 780 (city estopped from enjoining landowners' construction where building permit issued and advice given by building inspector later proved erroneous; landowners justified in relying on express instructions from building inspector and receipt of permit and made substantial construction expenditures in reliance thereon). Thus, the appeal is not moot.

Where a landowner has incurred substantial expenses or change of position in good faith reliance on the probability of a building permit's issuance, which is not the case here, and where all the prerequisites to issuance of the permit have been satisfied, the permit has been approved, and nothing remains but physical issuance, which is also not the case here, a vested right may arise. E.g., Mattson v. City of Chicago, 411 N.E.2d 1002, 89 Ill. App.3d 378 (1980). In Mattson, every division of the Department of Buildings had approved the building plans, and all processing had been completed except for the actual physical issuance of the permit.