222 E. CHESTNUT STREET CORP. v. BD. OF APPEALS CITY OF CHICAGO
| Decision Date | 26 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 34074.,34074. |
| Citation | 10 Ill.2d 130,139 N.E.2d 221 |
| Parties | 222 EAST CHESTNUT STREET CORPORATION, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
JOSEPH F. ELWARD, and EDWARD S. MACIE, both of Chicago, for appellant.
JOHN C. MELANIPHY, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago, (SYDNEY R. DREBIN, and HARRY H. POLLACK, of counsel,) for appellees Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Chicago et al.; SCHREIBER & MACK, ALBAN WEBER, TAYLOR MILLER, BUSCH & MAGNER, HOWARD B. BRYANT, and KIRKLAND, FLEMING, GREEN, MARTIN & ELLIS, (JOHN S. MILLER, RICHARD F. BABCOCK, RALPH B. MACK, and JOHN W.G. DOOLEY, of counsel,) all of Chicago, for other appellees.
Judgment affirmed.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Cook County denying plaintiff's prayer to set aside the grant of a building permit by the Chicago Zoning Board of Appeals.
The property involved consists of three lots on the south side of East Chestnut Street in Chicago, on which the defendant Lake Shore Club, through its affiliate the Lake Shore Realty Corp., proposes to build a three-and-four-story split-level garage, to provide parking facilities adjacent to its 18-story club building.
The plaintiff, 222 East Chestnut Street Corp., is the owner of a 19-story apartment building on the north side of East Chestnut Street, 293 feet obliquely across the street from the three lots in question. The plaintiff objects to the grant of the permit, alleging that the proposed structure would interfere with its light and air, congest traffic in the street, and reduce the value of its property.
Eight grounds for reversal are asserted, including constitutional objections which permit of a direct appeal to this court. However, there is one controlling point, the question of the plaintiff's interest or standing to maintain the action.
In 222 East Chestnut Street Corp. v. Board of Appeals, post, p. 132, decided this day, the same allegations of injury are involved. We there hold that these allegations must be supported by evidence and are not made out by a mere showing that plaintiff's building was 184.5 feet from the proposed building and in the same contiguous zoning district. In short, mere proximity without proof of actual damage is not sufficient.
Here, the plaintiff's building is 293 feet distant, and there is neither evidence nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dyer v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Arlington Heights
...including Winston v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1951), 407 Ill. 588, 95 N.E.2d 864, and 222 East Chestnut Street Corp. v. Board of Appeals of City of Chicago (1956), 10 Ill.2d 130, 139 N.E.2d 221, cert. denied (1957), 353 U.S. 984, 77 S.Ct. 1284, 1 L.Ed.2d In Winston, plaintiffs' complaint, i......
-
La Salle National Bank v. 222 East Chestnut Street Corp.
...ruled that 222 had no standing to bring the action and affirmed the decision of the Superior Court. 222 East Chestnut St. Corp. v. Board of Appeals, 10 Ill.2d 310, 139 N.E.2d 221. On December 19, 1956, the supersedeas and stay order was terminated and dissolved. Plaintiffs again applied to ......
-
People v. National Builders Bank of Chicago
... ... in 1950 to her present address, '1658 Main Street, Crete, Illinois.' ... In 1948, ... ...
-
Appel v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Mattoon, Gen. No. 11110
...review to both allege and prove that the board's decision would in fact adversely affect such party. 222 East Chestnut Street Corp. v. Board of Appeals, 10 Ill.2d 130, 139 N.E.2d 221, and 10 Ill.2d 132, 139 N.E.2d The defendants' position is not well founded. Such interpretation of the lang......