Court Opinion

ID: 9540246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:14:02.891705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:46.992841
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE RECHENMACHER delivered the opinion of the court: The appellants have petitioned for a rehearing, pointing out that we erred in our opinion in stating that: “Witnesses for the County, the county zoning officer and a city and regional planner, testified that for the most part the area in question along Ogden Avenue was primarily B-2 in character, * * *” inasmuch as only the city and regional planner, Mr. Efrussy, so testified, the county zoning officer not having expressed any opinion as to the character of the area. We acknowledge the error in stating that the county zoning officer testified to the same opinion as the regional planner, Mr. Efrussy, since he apparently was not asked and did not express an opinion as to the predominant character of the neighborhood from a zoning standpoint. However, we do not feel this factual misstatement materially impairs the opinion. Mr. Efrussy’s testimony, considered together with that of the plaintiffs’ experts, was sufficient to frame the issue before this court. We believe the rationale of the opinion is not affected by our misstatment since the opinion did not depend primarily on the number of witnesses — expert or otherwise — testifying for either side, but rather, on basic considerations of zoning policy. We note the comment in the petition for rehearing that this court has ignored the supreme court’s criteria for determining proper zoning classifications as set forth in the Myers’ case,1 and the implication that we have instead allowed a standard based on “the whim of local officials.” That inference is entirely unwarranted from our opinion. We said: “In the case before us the presumptive validity of the DuPage County B-2 zoning classification is not overcome merely by showing that a previous B-4 use is being tolerated in that area. We must agree with the County zoning expert that the degree of intensity of the prohibited use has a bearing on the question and becomes critical at the point where it threatens the entire zoning scheme by creating a situation from which there is no return.” We affirm the language as applied to this particular case, while rejecting the implication that it encourages unconstitutional discrimination in zoning, as the plaintiffs contend. The petition for rehearing is therefore denied and the finding of the original opinion is affirmed. Petition for rehearing denied; judgment affirmed. SEIDENFELD and BOYLE, JJ., concur.   Myers v. City of Elmhurst (1958), 12 Ill. 2d 537.