DocketNumber： No. 24406. Judgment affirmed.
Citation Numbers： 13 N.E.2d 960, 368 Ill. 325
Judges： Shaw, Stone
Filed Date： 2/16/1938
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 11/8/2024
The circuit court of Peoria county awarded a writ of mandamus directing the appellant Boyd E. Norvell, as commissioner of buildings of the city of Peoria, to issue a building permit for the erection of a single-family dwelling on the lot hereinafter described. The commissioner and the city of Peoria, by this appeal, seek to reverse that order, contending that the zoning ordinance of Peoria is such as to prevent the erection of this particular house, and that the ordinance is valid as a reasonable exercise of the police power.
The appellee owns a lot in Peoria extending 440 feet on Saratoga street and 180 feet, each, on Moss avenue and Seventh street. It is her plan to eventually erect ten single-family dwelling houses on this property and for that purpose she has provided a strip of land for a private entrance way from Moss avenue parallel to Saratoga street, to be known as Moss Avenue Terrace. The plan is shown in the record by a drawing and a blue-print, but no official plat has ever been made or recorded. The tract on which the dwelling house in question is to be erected is 80 by 64 feet in size, facing on Moss Avenue Terrace, and contains 5120 square feet, or more than the 5000-square-foot minimum provided by the zoning ordinance. The building permit was refused solely because the tract upon which it was to be erected did not have its principal frontage upon a "street or officially approved place," as provided by the zoning ordinance. The application for the permit gave a correct legal description, by metes and bounds, of the tract to be used.
The plan submitted to the commissioner of buildings complied in all ways with the requirements of the zoning *Page 327 ordinance as to width and depth of lot, front yard, back yard and purposes for which the building is to be used. The question before us is the narrow one of whether or not any valid restriction has been placed on the appellee's right to use her property in this way, and, if so, whether such restriction is sustainable under the police power.
There is no rule of law which forbids the subdivision of land by its owner in such a way as to establish over it only private ways for the sole benefit of those who may become owners of lots in the tract, and in which the public, as such, will have no interest and over which it will have no control. (City of Chicago
v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co.
There is one objection to the section of the ordinance which we are considering which makes it unnecessary to consider other sections thereof or other objections thereto. Any ordinance which invests arbitrary power in a public official which may be used in the interests of some to the exclusion of others is unreasonable and void. (Cicero Lumber Co. v. Town of Cicero,
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. JUSTICE STONE took no part in this decision.
City of Chicago v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad , 319 Ill. 351 ( 1925 )
Bigelow v. City of Rolling Meadows , 372 Ill. App. 3d 60 ( 2007 )
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. Co. v. Liddle , 253 Iowa 402 ( 1962 )
Trust Co. of Chicago v. City of Chicago , 408 Ill. 91 ( 1951 )
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. City of Park Ridge , 16 Ill. App. 2d 555 ( 1958 )
Reiman v. Kale , 83 Ill. App. 3d 773 ( 1980 )
Mosko v. Dunbar , 135 Colo. 172 ( 1957 )
Bigelow v. City of Rolling Meadows ( 2007 )
Eachus v. People , 124 Colo. 454 ( 1951 )
Meegan v. Village of Tinley Park , 52 Ill. 2d 354 ( 1972 )
Krol v. County of Will , 38 Ill. 2d 587 ( 1968 )
The N.T. Hegeman Co. v. Mayor, Etc., River Edge , 6 N.J. Super. 495 ( 1949 )
Keating v. Patterson , 132 Conn. 210 ( 1945 )
Gibbons v. City of Chicago , 34 Ill. 2d 102 ( 1966 )
City of Chicago v. Pennsylvania Railroad , 41 Ill. 2d 245 ( 1968 )
Western Terrace Building Corp. v. Village of Palatine , 102 Ill. App. 2d 116 ( 1968 )