People ex rel. Exchange Nat. Bank of Chicago v. City of Lake Forest
| Decision Date | 29 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 40909,40909 |
| Citation | 239 N.E.2d 819,40 Ill.2d 281 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE ex rel. the EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, Appellant, v. The CITY OF LAKE FOREST et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Charles F. Marino, Chicago, for appellant.
Thomas H. Compere, Corp. Counsel, Waukegan (Stanley Grosshandler, Waukegan, of counsel), for appellees.
This Mandamus proceeding was brought by the plaintiff in the circuit court of Lake County to compel the corporate authorities of the city of Lake Forest (City) to accept a plat of a proposed resubdivision. The City refused to approve the plat because it did not provide for certain dedications of land for public streets. The plaintiff and defendants both moved for summary judgments. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the City, and the plaintiff has appealed directly to this court. A constitutional question appears as to whether the City's requiring the dedications will be upheld as reasonable police power regulation or will fail as an attempted confiscation of private property for public use without allowing just compensation.
The plaintiff is the owner of 'Serafine Acres' a 26 1/2 acre tract of real estate located in the City. Lot 2 of the present two-lot subdivision is a long 25-acre property, resembling a rectangle, which is improved with a two-story brick residence and swimming pool and which fronts at its east border on Ridge Road, an existing north-south public street. The home and pool are set back from Ridge Road. There is direct access to Ridge Road through a private driveway.
Adjoining the plaintiff's property to the north is 'Teich's Subdivision.' In August, 1965, the City approved a subdivision of this neighboring property into 6 lots. Lots 5 and 6 of Teich's Subdivision are interior lots located in the west portion of the property. They are unimproved and landlocked in that they have no access to any existing public thoroughfare. The approved and recorded plat of Teich's Subdivision provides by agreement of the owners that 'Lots 5 and 6 will not be buildable until served by a public road and this covenant shall run with the land.' In the subdividing of the Teich property, the owners dedicated two strips of land for public street purposes. (The standard width of streets in the City is 66 feet.) One dedication consists of a 66-foot-wide strip of land which runs apparently about 1,000 feet in a north-to-south direction perpendicularly adjacent to and ending at the northern boundary of Serafine Acres. This right of way is bordered on the east by Teich's Subdivision lots 4 and 5 and on the west by lot 6. The other dedication begins in the east at Ridge Road. It is 33 feet wide and stretches about 2,000 feet in a westerly direction parallel with and contiguous to the northern boundary of Serafine Acres. The way ends where it meets the 66-foot-wide dedication above described along and above the northern boundary of Serafine Acres. Both these dedications remain unimproved, streets not yet having been laid.
In January, 1966, the plaintiff, Joseph Serafine, submitted to the City for approval a tentative plat for resubdividing lot 2 of Serafine Acres into two parcels, proposed lots 1 and 2. Proposed lot 1, where the residence and pool are situated, would be 8 1/2 acres. Proposed lot 2 would be an unimproved 16 1/2 acre dumbbell shaped area which would almost enclose proposed lot 1. Both proposed lots would front on and have direct access to Ridge Road, as before. The plaintiff stated on oral argument, that he had sought resubdivision of this 25-acre property because he believes the prospect of selling the house will be improved if it is situated on an 8 1/2-acre lot (proposed lot 1) rather than on a 25-acre lot. Also, it appears from the record that a contract to sell proposed lot 1 had been entered into, contingent upon the City's approval of the plat of resubdivision.
The City prescribed as a condition precedent to its approval of Serafine's tentative plat of resubdivision that he dedicate designated land as public street sites. The City insists upon two dedications, both of which the plaintiff has declined to make. The first would be a narrow 33-foot wide strip of land. It would commence at Ridge Road in the east and run west along the northern boundary of Serafine Acres about 2,000 feet parallel to and fusing with the identical 33-foot-wide east-west pathway already dedicated in Teich's Subdivision. The two merged 33-foot-wide rights of way would then potentially form a full 66-foot-wide thoroughfare. The second dedication would be a narrow slice of land 66 feet in width and about 355 feet in length in the western portion of Serafine Acres. This dedication would begin about at the southern boundary of proposed lot 2 and cut directly through and across the lot to its northern boundary. At the northern boundary this right of way would unite with and thus extend the 66-foot-wide north-south potential roadway already dedicated in Teich's Subdivision. Too, this potential north-south street would be met by the two fused 33-foot strips described which lead to Ridge Road to the east.
The plaintiff argues that under the circumstances the City's rejection of his plat of resubdivision because it does not contain dedications for new public streets amounts to a taking of private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments to the United States constitution and section 13 of article II of the constitution of Illinois, S.H.A. The City maintains that the legislature has duly delegated to it the power to regulate the platting and subdividing of land within the City's corporate limits and that this power has been reasonably exercised in this case.
The City specifically relies on section 8 of article XI of its special legislative charter to support its action in requiring the dedications mentioned for approval of the plaintiff's plat of resubdivision. That special charter provision states in pertinent part that: 'The city council shall have the power to require that all * * * subdivisions of land within the limits of said city shall be laid out or platted as to correspond and conform to the regular blocks, streets, alleys and highways already laid out and established within said city * * *.' The City also points for authority to Chapter 8, Article III ('New Subdivisions') of its City Code where it is said, under 8--3--7(j) pertaining to final plat requirements, that: '8provisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard County v. JJM, Inc.
...lower tribunals were in error in holding to the contrary. To the same general effect elsewhere, see People ex rel. Exchange National Bank v. Lake Forest, 40 Ill.2d 281, 239 N.E.2d 819 (1968); but cf. Ayres v. City Council of City of Los Angeles, 34 Cal.2d 31, 207 P.2d 1, 11 A.L.R.2d 503 (19......
-
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek
...329, 121 N.W.2d 823; Coronado Development Co. v. City of McPherson (1962) 189 Kan. 174, 368 P.2d 51; People ex rel. Exchange Nat. Bank v. Lake Forest (1968) 40 Ill.2d 281, 239 N.E.2d 819; Rosen v. Village of Downers Grove (1960) 19 Ill.2d 448, 167 M.E.2d 230; Daniels v. Point Pleasant (1957......
-
Board of Sup'rs of James City County v. Rowe, 740994
...and uniquely attributable' to the needs expected to be generated by the proposed development. See, Exchange Nat'l Bank v. Lake Forest, 40 Ill.2d 281, 287, 239 N.E.2d 819, 821 (1968); Pioneer Trust & S. Bank v. Village of Mount Prospect, 22 Ill.2d 375, 380, 176 N.E.2d 799, 802 (1961); Noland......
-
Plote, Inc. v. Minnesota Alden Co.
...Trust & Savings Bank v. Village of Mount Prospect, 22 Ill.2d at 380, 176 N.E.2d 799; see also Exchange National Bank v. City of Lake Forest (1968), 40 Ill.2d 281, 288, 239 N.E.2d 819.) The test developed by the supreme court to distinguish between impermissible and permissible conditions is......