Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Kingery
| Decision Date | 14 April 1939 |
| Docket Number | 24991.,Nos. 24960,s. 24960 |
| Citation | 20 N.E.2d 583,371 Ill. 257 |
| Parties | CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CHICAGO v. KINGERY et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding by the Catholic Bishop of Chicago for a permit to construct a parochial school building and chapel on certain land in the village of Winnetka. From a judgment reversing an order of the village board of zoning appeals, which affirmed a denial of such permit by the superintendent of public works, and directing the issuance of a permit, Robert Kingery and others appeal.
Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Joseph Burke, Judge.
Francis X. Busch, Cassius M. Doty, and Charles R. Sprowl, all of Chicago, for appellants Robert Kingery and others.
Tenney, Harding, Sherman & Rogers, of Chicago (Henry F. Tenney and William W. Miller, both of Chicago, of counsel), for other appellants.
Kirkland, Fleming, Green, Martin & Ellis, of Chicago (Weymouth Kirkland, Walter C. Senne, John M. O'Connor, Jr., and Thomas F. Scully, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
The members of the zoning board of appeals and the superintendent of public works of the village of Winnetka, appeal from an order of the circuit court of Cook county finding a certain zoning ordinance of Winnetka unreasonable, discriminatory, unconstitutional and void, as applied to designated property. Certain property owners, who were not parties to the cause when it was tried in the circuit court, join in this appeal pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Civil Practice Act, secs. 74, 75, 76 and 81, Ill.Rev.Stat.1937, chap. 110, §§ 198-200, 205, and by order of this court.
On March 3, 1938, the appellee applied to the superintendent of public works of the village of Winnetka for a permit to construct a parochial school building and a chapel on the property in question. Upon denial of this application an appeal was taken to the board of zoning appeals of the village of Winnetka which affirmed the finding of the superintendent, and, subsequently, appellee filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court of Cook county. The writ was ordered to issue and the zoning board made a return to the writ. Upon a hearing the circuit court reversed the order of the board of appeals and directed that a building permit issue for the construction of the school. The trial court has certified that the validity of a municipal ordinance is involved and that the public interest requires a direct appeal be taken to this court.
The village of Winnetka, an exclusive residential suburb eighteen miles northwest of Chicago, adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance on January 17, 1922. The property which the Catholic Bishop of Chicago acquired on July 13, 1936, is located in an area designated by that ordinance as ‘A Residential.’ Sections 3 and 3A of the ordinance provide that no building shall be used or thereafter erected or altered within the ‘A Residential’ districts unless otherwise provided by the ordinance except for the necessary use to which any one of the following places or establishments may be put: Single-family dwelling, church or temple, public school, library, farm or truck garden.
Under the police power, cities and villages have the right to adopt zoning ordinances which impose a reasonable restraint upon the use of private property. City of Aurora v. Burns, 319 Ill. 84, 149 N.E. 784;Reschke v. Village of Winnetka, 363 Ill. 478, 2 N.E.2d 718;People v. City of Rockford, 363 Ill. 531, 2 N.E.2d 842;Johnson v. Village of Villa Park, 370 Ill. 272, 18 N.E.2d 887. Such exercise of the police power is not unlimited but must bear a substantial relationship to the preservation of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. Koss v. Saunders, 349 Ill. 442, 182 N.E. 415;Western Theological Seminary v. City of Evanston, 325 Ill. 511, 156 N.E. 778. If it is apparent that an ordinance restricts the property rights of individuals without having any direct substantial relationship to the promotion of the public health, safety, morals or welfare, then such an ordinance is invalid and cannot be sustained. Forbes v. Hubbard, 348 Ill. 166, 180 N.E. 767;State Bank & Trust Co. v. Village of Wilmette, 358 Ill. 311, 193 N.E. 131, 96 A.L.R. 1327; Johnson v. Village of Villa Park, supra.
Examination of the ordinance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brighton
...State ex rel. Lear, 128 Fla. 750, 175 So. 537; City of Chicago v. Sachs, 1 Ill.2d 342, 115 N.E.2d 762, supra; Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Kingery, 371 Ill. 257, 20 N.E.2d 583; Lumpkin v. Township Committee of Bernards, 134 N.J.L. 428, 48 A.2d 798; State v. Northwestern Preparatory School,......
-
Roman Catholic Diocese of Newark v. Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus
...184 A.2d 42 (Sup.Ct.Err.1962); City of Miami Beach v. State, 128 Fla. 750, 175 So. 537 (Sup.Ct.1937); Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Kingery, 371 Ill. 257, 20 N.E.2d 583 (Sup.Ct.1939); Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Board, 1 N.Y.2d 508, 154 N.Y.S.2d 849, 136 N.E.2d 827, 834 (Ct.App.1956); ......
-
Appeal of O'Hara
...at page 453, 97 A.2d 523.7 Courts have generally frowned on efforts to exclude schools from residential areas: Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Kingery, 371 Ill. 257, 20 N.E.2d 583; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Diocese of Oregon v. Baker, 140 Or. 600, 15 P.2d 391; Langbein v. Board of Zoning A......
-
St. John's Roman Catholic Church Corp. v. Town of Darien
...public schools are permitted. See Roman Catholic Welfare Corporation v. Piedmont, 45 Cal.2d 325, 289 P.2d 438; Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Kingery, 371 Ill. 257, 20 N.E.2d 583; State v. Northwestern Preparatory School, 228 Minn. 363, 37 N.W.2d 370; State ex rel. Wisconsin Lutheran High Sc......