Lancaster Development, Limited v. Village of River Forest
| Decision Date | 16 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 51856 |
| Citation | 228 N.E.2d 526,84 Ill.App.2d 395 |
| Parties | , 30 A.L.R.3d 1190 LANCASTER DEVELOPMENT, LTD., an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VILLAGE OF RIVER FOREST, Illinois, a municipal corporation, and Howard Denney, Building Commissioner, Village of River Forest, Illinois, Defendants- Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Taxman & Farber, Fredric N. Richman, Arthur Abraham, Chicago, for appellee.
Defendant appeal from an order that two ordinances adopted by the Village of River Forest be declared null and void. One of them was an amendatory zoning ordinance, adopted on August 8, 1966, which the court found to be unreasonable and discriminatory because it constituted spot zoning. The other was an interim ordinance, adopted on June 20, 1966, which prohibited the issuance of a building permit for three months after the question of amending the zoning ordinance was referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. In its order the court also directed that the plaintiff be issued a building permit.
In April and May of 1966 plaintiff, an Illinois corporation engaged in real estate development, contracted to purchase for $195,000 1 three consecutive parcels of land, one contiguous to the next, which were located on the east side of the 1000 block of Bonnie Brae Place in River Forest, Illinois. Each parcel was improved with a single family dwelling. The subject block is bounded by Harlem Avenue on the east, Augusta Boulevard on the south, Bonnie Brae on the west and Thomas Street on the north. On the parcels of land which it purchased plaintiff proposed to construct a condominium, forty-five feet high and containing thirty-nine units. The proposed condominium thus was in complete compliance with the zoning at the time the contracts to purchase the land were executed. At that time (and since the inception of zoning in River Forest in 1922) the subject block was in an area zoned as a 'B' multiple family use district which permits the erection of apartments, condominiums and the like with a density of fifty families per acre and a building height of forty-five feet. In 1959 the Village of River Forest adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance which affirmed that classification. Under that ordinance the blocks north of Augusta Boulevard (a heavily travelled street) having Harlem Avenue as their eastern border (which includes the subject block) were zoned as a 'B' multiple family district, with certain exceptions for industrial uses. Those blocks south of August with Harlem Avenue bordering on the east were zoned for single-family dwellings, also with certain exceptions for industrial uses. On June 13, 1966, the corporate authorities of River Forest received a petition from certain residents of the area who objected to the construction of the proposed condominium in which they requested that the zoning of the block containing these parcels of land be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for amendment to a new zoning 'AA' two-family classification. The matter was referred to the Zoning Board as requested. On June 17 plaintiff entered into a contract for the demolition of the three homes. On June 20, at a special meeting, the corporate authorities of River Forest adopted an interim ordinance which prohibited the issuance of building permits for a period of three months after a question of amending the zoning ordinance had been referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This ordinance was enacted without notice and without a hearing having been conducted.
On July 12, 1966, plaintiff applied for a building permit to construct the condominium, at which time plans and specifications were submitted to the Village. Also on July 12, the Village issued permits for demolition of the houses located on the subject property. The Zoning Board, after giving proper notice, held a hearing on July 13, 1966, on the proposed zoning amendment and recommended that the present 'B' multiple family zoning should remain The present 'B' zoning of the subject block does have a real and substantial relationship to the public health, safety, comfort, morals, and general welfare of the village and does not unreasonably diminish or impair existing land values within the establish surrounding area, nor does the zoning impair adequate supply of light and air to other properties. No evidence was introduced at the hearing which would require the rezoning of the subject block for the public good. To the contrary, the land is suitable for the 'B' zoning it has had for 44 years.
in effect for the block in question. In support of its conclusion the Zoning Board made various findings, including the following:
If the rezoning were accomplished, there would be spot zoning by a new use district which would not exist in any other part of the village.
In recommending that the present 'B' multiple family zoning be retained, the Board stated:
Creation of a new zone classification and its application to this single block might lead to serious problems elsewhere in the village unless preceded by a careful study of its effect upon the village as a whole.
Testimony in favor of the proposal (that the 'B' zoning be changed) was largely in the form of opinions unsupported by sufficient qualified expert testimony.
The property upon which the proposed condominium is to be erected was purchased on binding contracts after Mr. Dick ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights
...744 (1970) ("An amendment to a zoning ordinance passed without a public hearing is void."); Lancaster Development, Ltd. v. Village of River Forest, 84 Ill.App.2d 395, 400, 228 N.E.2d 526, 529 (1967). Moreover, it is the law in Illinois that adjacent property owners have legally cognizable i......
-
Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island
...moratoria is not part of a municipality's power to regulate land under the state constitution); Lancaster Dev., Ltd. v. Vill. of River Forest, 84 Ill.App.2d 395, 228 N.E.2d 526, 529 (1967). ¶ 61 A local ordinance is consistent with article XI, section 11 if it does not conflict with a gener......
-
Arnold Bernhard and Co., Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Westport
...with statutory procedures; Anderson v. Pima County, 27 Ariz.App. 786, 787-88, 558 P.2d 981 (1976); Lancaster Development, Ltd. v. River Forest, 84 Ill.App.2d 395, 400, 228 N.E.2d 526 (1967); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. City of Park Ridge, 16 Ill.App.2d 555, 563, 149 N.E.2d 344 (1958); Alexand......
-
Collura v. Town of Arlington
...and n. 2, 125 N.W.2d 583 (1963); Kline v. Harrisburg, 362 Pa. 438, 457, 68 A.2d 182 (1949). See also Lancaster Dev. Ltd. v. River Forest, 84 Ill.App.2d 395, 399--400, 228 N.E.2d 526 (1967). By contrast, in adopting art. 57, the town complied strictly with the requirements of G.L. c. 40A, § ......
-
Chinks in the Armor: Municipal Authority to Enact Shoreline Permit Moratoria After Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island
...See discussion infra notes 181, 183. 117.Naylor v. Twp. ofHellam, 773 A.2d 770, 775 (Pa. 2001). 118. Lancaster Dev. Ltd. v. River Forest, 228 N.E.2d 526, 529 (111. App. Ct. 1967) (reasoning that the statute mandated a particular procedure and that an interim zoning measure without notice an......