In a recent legal battle over building code violations, a homeowner found himself at odds with local authorities, leading to a court case that highlights the complexities of municipal regulations and administrative reviews. On September 30, 2024, James Fisher filed an appeal in the Appellate Court of Illinois against the Village of Lansing following a circuit court's dismissal of his complaint regarding alleged building code violations.
The case began when Fisher was found liable for three building code violations by a hearing officer from the Village of Lansing. The issues arose from inspections conducted at Fisher's property on 190th Street in Lansing, Illinois. According to the Village, multiple inspections revealed problems with smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and inadequate railings. Despite being informed that he needed to schedule a re-inspection to resolve these issues, Fisher allegedly failed to do so. Consequently, in November 2021, he received a notice for an administrative hearing concerning three specific violations: failing to obtain an inspection as required by R109.1.2 of the International Residential Code (IRC), failing to schedule re-inspections for electrical and building concerns per R109.1.5, and not obtaining a certificate of occupancy as mandated by R110.1.
Fisher's attorney argued during the February 3, 2022 hearing that his client had addressed all items from previous inspections and contended that any delay in issuing a certificate of occupancy was due to the municipality's failure to provide necessary documentation consistent with their own inspection reports. However, testimony from Zoran Savic, the Village’s building commissioner, indicated ongoing issues such as missing railings and non-compliant smoke detectors that needed hardwiring according to IRC standards.
Despite Fisher's absence due to illness at the hearing—a fact uncommunicated at the time—his attorney maintained his innocence regarding all charges. Nevertheless, based on testimonies and evidence presented during the administrative proceedings, including photographs and inspector observations confirming open walls necessitating hardwired alarms, Fisher was fined $1000 for these violations.
After his complaint for administrative review was dismissed by the circuit court on June 27, 2022—where it was noted that new evidence could not be introduced—Fisher filed a motion to reconsider which was also denied on October 11, 2022. He claimed procedural errors in applying standards of review and alleged due process violations but failed to present these arguments adequately during initial hearings or provide compelling evidence supporting his claims.
Representing himself pro se after initial legal representation by Mario Reed proved challenging for Fisher as procedural missteps were noted throughout his appeals process. The case ID is No. 1-22-1618 with Judge Carrie E. Hamilton presiding over initial proceedings before Justices Pucinski, Fitzgerald Smith, and Cobbs affirmed decisions made against him.