Opinion ID: 2063659
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: basement apartments in the woodlawn structure

Text: The appellees argue that the developers' plan to repair the basement apartments in the Woodlawn structure for residential purposes violates the rehabilitation code and the building code because the floors of the units will be more than two feet below grade. Section 78.1-3 of the rehabilitation code provides in pertinent part that [w]here there are not specific provisions in this article [ i.e., the rehabilitation code] applying to the repair, alteration of, [or] additions to    any existing building or structure or part thereof, then such building or part thereof shall be made to comply with the pertinent provisions of this Code for new buildings or structures. (Chicago Municipal Code ch. 78.1, § 78.1-3 (1983).) Basement rooms in newly constructed residential dwellings are governed by section 52-7 of the Code (Chicago Municipal Code ch. 52, § 52-7 (1984)), which states that [h]abitable rooms shall be permitted in a basement only when the floor is not more than two feet below finished grade level at all exterior walls containing openings required for natural light and ventilation. Since evidence submitted by the appellees indicated that the basement units at the Woodlawn structure were more than two feet below grade, we agree with the appellate court that the trial court's ruling in favor of the developers on this point must also be reversed. The developers also argue in their reply brief that the appellate court's decision constitutes a taking of their property without just compensation, in violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. Arguments not raised until the reply brief are, of course, waived. 107 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7). Lastly, the developers argue that the appellees' failure to seek a stay of the trial court's judgment and post a bond pursuant to our Rule 305 (107 Ill.2d R. 305) precludes the appellees from prevailing on appeal. The developers assert they completed the rehabilitation while the appeal was pending. This argument is nearly identical to that rejected in O'Laughlin v. City of Chicago (1976), 65 Ill.2d 183, 192. In O'Laughlin the plaintiff was granted an injunction instructing the city to restore his building permits. The city moved to stay the order in the appellate and trial courts, although not, apparently, in a timely fashion. During the pendency of the city's appeal, the plaintiff constructed the buildings and conveyed them to third parties. The appellate court reversed, holding that the plaintiff's construction was illegal, and remanded to the circuit court with directions to enter an order in favor of the city. Responding to plaintiff's argument that the city was estopped, we stated that the failure of the City to move for a stay of the order does not create a basis for equitable estoppel. The failure of the City to promptly request a stay in the circuit court neither precludes its right to an appeal nor prohibits it from receiving the relief it should have obtained in the lower court. To hold otherwise would substantially foreclose the appellate process in cases similar to the one at bar. (65 Ill.2d at 192.) It is clear from this quotation that the holding in O'Laughlin did not depend upon the city's request for a stay in that case. Moreover, the developers cite no specific provision of Rule 305 which would support their claim of estoppel. We acknowledge that the grant of equitable relief may depend in part upon the changed circumstance that the project has now actually been built. However, the appellees indicate in their brief that they are not requesting that the building be demolished for noncompliance with the codes, but only that the basement apartments be vacated. In any case, the trial court on remand will be free to fashion appropriate relief. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court of Cook County for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein. Affirmed; cause remanded.