First Nat. Bank of Chicago Heights v. City of Chicago Heights, s. 77-835
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Citation | 21 Ill.Dec. 337,381 N.E.2d 446,63 Ill.App.3d 963 |
Docket Number | 77-1132,Nos. 77-835,s. 77-835 |
Parties | , 21 Ill.Dec. 337 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO HEIGHTS, as Trustee under Trust 3111, and Ralph Crescenzo, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF CHICAGO HEIGHTS, a Municipal Corporation of Illinois, Chuck Panici, Building Commissioner, and Eugene F. Sadus, Commissioner of Streets and Public Improvements, Defendants. Appeal of Gerald J. LaMARRE, interested property owner, and the Save Our Neighborhood Association, an unincorporated Association. |
Decision Date | 16 August 1978 |
Page 446
Trust 3111, and Ralph Crescenzo, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO HEIGHTS, a Municipal Corporation of
Illinois, Chuck Panici, Building Commissioner, and
Eugene F. Sadus, Commissioner of Streets
and Public Improvements, Defendants.
Appeal of Gerald J. LaMARRE, interested property owner, and
the Save Our Neighborhood Association, an
unincorporated Association.
[63 Ill.App.3d 964]
Page 447
[21 Ill.Dec. 338] David P. Kula, Anthony Scariano & Associates, P. C., Chicago Heights, for appellants.Wayne B. Giampietro, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellees; Ligtenberg, DeJong, Poltrock & Giampietro, Chicago, of counsel.
JIGANTI, Presiding Justice:
This is an appeal from a decision by the circuit court of Cook County which granted an injunction and a writ of mandamus against the City of Chicago Heights (the City), the defendant in the trial court. The injunction orders that the City remove the barriers it placed blocking the access of the plaintiffs, Ralph Crescenzo and the First National Bank of Chicago Heights, to a dedicated street adjacent to their property. The mandamus also orders the City to issue a building permit for a driveway on the plaintiffs' property. The City did not appeal the ruling. The [63 Ill.App.3d 965] appellants are an unincorporated association of property owners from Chicago Heights, Illinois, the Save Our Neighborhood Association (the Association) and Gerald J. LaMarre, a member of the Association. The plaintiffs' property is improved with a shopping center. The Association members own land in the residential area immediately north of the shopping center; LaMarre's property abuts the dedicated street to which the plaintiffs seek access.
Page 448
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
[21 Ill.Dec. 339] As the map above shows, the land in question is a rectangle bordered on the north by 13th Street and on the south by 14th Street (which is also called Lincoln Highway). The plat of the property designates a center strip, running north and south, connecting 13th Street to 14th Street, as Wilson Avenue. Wilson Avenue, although dedicated, was never opened or improved as a street by the City. A natural stream, the Thorn Creek Tributary, flows across the center of the rectangle, from east to southwest. The plaintiffs own most of the land south of Thorn Creek. In 1975, the City granted zoning changes to the plaintiffs, permitting commercial use of their property. In addition, the City, at the plaintiffs' request, vacated part of Wilson Avenue, from the north end of the plaintiffs' property, south to 14th Street. The plaintiffs built a shopping center on their property with an entrance and exit onto Lincoln Highway. The other land on the rectangle, most of it north of Thorn Creek to 13th Street, remained [63 Ill.App.3d 966] vacant, except for a City owned well house. A gravelled strip runs from the well house to 13th Street. There is no evidence that this strip has ever been used by any type of public traffic.
The zoning changes were granted to the plaintiffs by the city council of Chicago Heights after a full hearing on the matter before the Zoning Board of Appeals (Zoning Board). The record of this hearing and the Zoning Board's formal finding that the Thorn Creek Tributary formed a natural barrier and buffer between the residential area north of 13th Street and the plaintiffs' commercial land uses were entered into evidence by the City at trial.
Sometime in 1976, the plaintiff Crescenzo began to grade and gravel a road on land north of his property. The road corresponded to the area on the plat designated as Wilson Avenue. Plans disclosed that he intended to pave it and open it as an access street from his property to 13th Street. Crescenzo erected a bridge over Thorn Creek on the northeastern edge of his property
Page 449
[21 Ill.Dec. 340] and built a driveway from the bridge to the roadway improvements he made. In December, 1976, after he had already begun the project, he applied to the City for two building permits, one for a driveway and another for a street. The City denied the permits, indicating that in order to limit traffic around the residential area north of 13th Street it did not intend to improve or open Wilson Avenue as a public street. The City...To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bond v. Dunmire, 4-83-0351
...by him if injunctive relief was not granted. The court's letter opinion quoted First National Bank v. City of Chicago Heights (1978), 63 Ill.App.3d 963, 21 Ill.Dec. 337, 381 N.E.2d "A property owner has no special right of access to a street that is not yet improved or opened by a city or i......
-
Crain Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Mound City, 5-87-0296
...asserts that the plaintiffs' position is akin to that of the plaintiffs in First National Bank v. City of Chicago Heights (1978), 63 Ill.App.3d 963, 21 Ill.Dec. 337, 381 N.E.2d 446 where abutting landowners sought to prevent the city from obstructing their access to Wilson Avenue, a platted......
-
People v. Gerena, 78-392
...the defendant pursuant to the pre-trial motion for dismissal. We find this case to fall squarely within Shick. Defendants Carrasquillo [63 Ill.App.3d 963] and Rivera had been in court for proceedings on the charges only once before the dismissal was requested. Defendant Gerena was in court ......
-
Diver v. Village of Glencoe, 77-1445
...relation to Warrant 264 were transferred to the suspense account, we have allowed the inclusion of such amounts in the adjusted Page 446 [21 Ill.Dec. 337] sum of Warrant 264 collections. The remaining funds in the suspense account have not been shown to be wrongfully diverted Warrant 264 co......