Stachnik v. Village of Norridge

• Decision Date: 03 February 1966
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 50300
• Citation: Stachnik v. Village of Norridge, 68 Ill.App.2d 361, 216 N.E.2d 207 (Ill. App. 1966)
• Parties: Helen E. STACHNIK and Walter L. Stachnik, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VILLAGE OF NORRIDGE, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 207

216 N.E.2d 207

68 Ill.App.2d 361

Helen E. STACHNIK and Walter L. Stachnik, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VILLAGE OF NORRIDGE, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 50300.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Feb. 3, 1966.

Peter G. Schultz and Bernard J. Hennessy, Chicago, for appellant.

Smith & Munson and Simon Herr, Chicago, for appellees.

SULLIVAN, Presiding Justice.

The defendant, Village of Norridge, a Municipal Corporation, appeals to this court from a declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Helen and Walter Stachnik, rendered by the circuit court of Cook County. The trial court found that the zoning ordinance of the defendant was unreasonable, discriminatory, confiscatory, unconstitutional and void insofar as it applied to the real estate of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are the owners of property located at the southwest corner of Lawrence Avenue and Ozanam Avenue in the Village of Norridge. The entire tract of the plaintiffs consists of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and the north 13 feet of Lot 4, all facing Ozanam Avenue.

The Village of Norridge adopted a zoning ordinance in 1962, under which ordinance the village was divided into seven (7) districts, which are:

(1) R--1--Single Family Residence District

(2) R--2--Two Family Residence District

(3) R--3--Multiple Family Residence District

(4) B--1--Restricted Neighborhood Business District

(5) B--2--Restricted (Shopping Center) Business District

(6) B--3--General Business District

(7) 'M'--Restricted Light Manufacturing District

The plaintiffs' property was zoned B--2 Restricted (Shopping Center) Business District. Automobile service stations are placed in the B--3 General Business District classification.

The plaintiffs have entered into an agreement with Texaco Oil Company whereby Texaco has agreed to purchase lots 1 and 2 of plaintiffs' property for $55,000.00, conditioned upon the property being rezoned B--3. At the present time, a house is situated on a portion of lot 2, and if the rezoning is successful, the house will be moved. The subject property extends 135 feet on Lawrence Avenue and 141 feet on Ozanam Avenue.

The plaintiffs applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the defendant village for a rezoning of the subject property to permit a gasoline service station to be erected thereon. The Board allowed the plaintiffs' application. The trustees of the village overruled the Board. The plaintiffs thereupon sued for the aforementioned declaratory judgment, which was granted by the trial court.

Lawrence Avenue runs westward through the village of Norridge. It is intersected at right angles by Ozanam Avenue. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of this intersection. Immediately to the west of the plaintiffs' property, on the south side of Lawrence Avenue, is a Convenient Food Market. It is part of an L-shaped shopping center containing a drug store, a package liquor store, coin-operated laundry and a beauty shop. West of the shopping center, across Opal Avenue, is a medical center and another beauty shop. Continuing 1200 feet wast to Canfield Avenue, a through north and south street, there are several older homes and a Baptist Church-Home for the Aged which has a frontage of 66 feet on Lawrence Avenue at Canfield. Across the street therefrom there is a service station on the north side of Lawrence Avenue.

Immediately east of the plaintiffs' property, across Ozanam Avenue, is another shopping center containing a variety store, a restaurant and delicatessen, and a card and gift shop. On the north side of Lawrence Avenue, across from the property in question, there are very modern single family homes which front on the side streets, Ozanam and Opal. From Opal, west, on the north side of Lawrence, it is entirely residential to Canfield.

The property surrounding the subject premises is zoned either for residential purposes, B--1 Restricted Neighborhood Business District, or B--2 Restricted (Shopping Center) Business District. The nearest B--3 zoning is four blocks away.

At the trial, the evidence and testimony adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs was as follows: There was ample shopping center use in the neighborhood. The retail uses in the area have reached a saturation point. There were three vacant stores in the shopping center east of the subject property that have been vacant for some time. The subject property is 'sandwiched in' between the two shopping centers. The business uses to the west and those to the east have almost created a 'Chinese Wall' around this property. It is isolated by two blank walls, and the orientation of other business uses is away from the property.

The best use of the premises would be in the next higher classification of zoning, permitting the erection of a service station thereon. The use of the premises for such a service station would have no depreciatory effect on the surrounding property. The value of the land if used for a business building would be approximately $12,500.00. However, if it were rezoned to permit a service station, the land value would be between $45,000.00 and $50,000.00.

The evidence and testimony adduced on behalf of the defendant was as follows: Taking into consideration the size of the property and the nature of the surrounding property, the best use of the subject premises would be a business use. The income would be safer and greater from stores and business rather than a special purpose use. The property could be made more productive for other business uses than for a single business use. The variation from the existing zoning would have a poor effect on the surrounding property. The present fair market value of plaintiffs' property was $40,000.00, and this value would remain about the same even it the zoning were changed to permit a service station.

The existing zoning encourages the activity and well-being of the present business interests in the area in that a business district is best served with a uniform type of business without having a gas station break it up. Two of the three stores that were vacant in the shopping center to the east of the subject premises were rented at the time of the trial; the other store was going to be used by the builder of the center as his own office.

The trial court found that since a portion of the village had been set aside for business, a gasoline service station could not be considered a detriment to the area. Further, it found that the plaintiffs had sustained the burden of proof of overcoming the presumption of the validity of the municipal ordinance, and the ordinance was therefore void as to the plaintiffs' property.

The decision of the trial court must be reversed. From our examination of all of the evidence presented and the testimony given, it is clear that the plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing by clear and covincing evidence that the ordinance, as applied to their land, is arbitrary and unreasonable. A zoning ordinance is presumed...