Court Opinion

ID: 9520029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:29:42.526844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:27.693891
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER, dissenting: I must respectfully dissent from the opinion of my colleagues. I neither agree with the majority’s opinion that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to the relief sought or that the trial court acted properly in excluding certain evidence of inadequacies in the proposed building plans. The petition in question does not set forth any ordinance relating to site approval. In requesting the relief of mandamus, the plaintiff asserts full compliance with all ordinances, and he therefore has a clear and unequivocal right to site approval and a building permit. If plaintiff is claiming full compliance with ordinances, I think it is incumbent upon him to set forth those ordinances in his petition. Where plaintiff seeks issuance of a permit, the plaintiff must show complete compliance with the ordinances before the writ will issue. (Solomon v. City of Evanston, 29 Ill. App. 3d 782, 331 N.E.2d 380.) Nowhere in the record do the ordinances involved appear. Without knowing the provisions of the relevant ordinances, how can the plaintiff’s compliance with those ordinances be rationally ascertained. Furthermore, while the parties argue that site approval was necessary and the city board has some degree of discretion, the extent of the board’s discretion and the matters which are properly subject to that discretion can only be ascertained by reference to the appropriate ordinances. I believe that plaintiff’s failure to plead or prove the ordinance under which he was requesting relief is fatal to his claim. The opinion of the majority makes no reference to any ordinance which has been complied with by the plaintiff and also fails to refer to any reasons why the plaintiff is entitled to “site approval.” So far as the question of an official designation of the proposed roadway is concerned, the master traffic plan adopted by the city council does indicate an Imperial Drive at or near two of the edges of plaintiff’s property. From the manner in which the ends of the existing roads are shown, the unfinished ends of the drive were to be linked together by a segment across plaintiff’s property. The full intersection for Imperial and a cross street (Terra Vista Dr.) at the western edge of plaintiff’s property has already been constructed with the city of Peoria contributing substantial sums of money toward construction costs. The plaintiff’s plans presently under consideration will utilize the unfinished extension of Imperial Drive through the intersection as the sole means of access to a parking lot for the apartment building. The decision of the majority is initially predicated on the absence of any designations of Imperial Drive on any official map sufficient to charge plaintiff with notice of the planned drive. However, later in its opinion, the majority concedes the map does show the ends of Imperial Drive apart from the extension thereof and the area which would be crossed by connecting the segments of Imperial Drive. Although conceding there is a map showing the segments of Imperial Drive to be connected and extended, the majority argues it is not necessary to route the connecting link across plaintiff’s property, but rather alternative routes are available. Not only is the majority’s position inconsistent, the alternative routes are not available and not even the plaintiff made any such argument. In stating that several different routes are available to connect the two portions of Imperial Drive, the majority acknowledges that Imperial Drive is already partially completed and that the two unfinished ends of the existing pavement were to be connected. While minor deviations in routing the proposed connecting segment are possible, the majority is incorrect in stating that plaintiff’s property is not directly between the two existing segments. Examination of plaintiff’s exhibits B and C indicates that the existing pavement of Imperial Drive passed the intersection of Imperial and Terra Vista Drive abuts the western edge of plaintiff’s property. Since the pavement abutting the western edge of plaintiff’s property can only be connected with the other end of Imperial Drive by proceeding in an easterly direction across plaintiff’s property, I fail to comprehend the basis for the majority’s statement that plaintiff’s property is not directly between the two existing segments. From the map of the master traffic plan and the testimony of the city, the method of designating minor roadways known as “collector streets” (such as Imperial Drive) was for the purpose of permitting property owners some discretion in the location of the road in developing their property. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that for several years prior to his present plan, plaintiff knew of the city’s plan and intention that at some time a drive would be constructed as part of the overall development of the area. Nor can I agree with my colleagues that the trial court acted properly in preventing the defendants from introducing evidence that the building proposed by plaintiff contained certain fire hazards. The principles of estoppel against municipalities in matters relating to the public health, safety and welfare are well stated in Hickey v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 35 Ill. 2d 427, 448-49, 220 N.E.2d 415, 426. “ ‘While situations may arise which justify invoking the doctrine of estoppel even against the State when acting in its governmental capacity, (citation) we have always adhered to the rule that mere nonaction of governmental officers is not sufficient to work an estoppel and that before the doctrine can be invoked against the State or a municipality there must have been some positive acts by the officials which may have induced the action of the adverse party under circumstances where it would be inequitable to permit the corporation to stultify itself by retracting what its officers had previously done. [Citations.] In applying the doctrine of estoppel, the courts will not decide the question by mere lapse of time but by all the circumstances of the case, and will hold the public estopped or not as right or justice may require. [Citations.] The doctrine is invoked only to prevent fraud and injustice’.” The rationale of such a rule is rooted in the concept that valuable public interests may be jeopardized or lost by the negligence, mistakes or inattention of public officials. (United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 91 L. Ed. 1889, 67 S. Ct. 1658.) Certainly, there can be few interests greater than the safety of the public. Here the defendants by way of various offers of proof attempted to establish that a single 2/2-story structure of over 900 feet in length, which had access for fire equipment (via a parking lot) on only one side, presented serious fire hazards and jeopardized the safety of the occupants. The building in question has apartments on one side facing the parking lot and apartments on the other side facing a green area. It appears from the testimony and offers of proof that the only access to fighting a fire in the apartments facing the green area was by dragging hoses over the roof, through hallways which contained stairways, or a considerable distance from ends of the building. I believe such concerns were legitimate ones and should have been considered by the trial court. Examination of cases reveals that equitable estoppel generally arises in situations where a party expends substantial sums in reliance on an invalid building permit and the city then attempts to revoke the invalid permit. An estoppel may also arise when the city attempts to revoke a valid permit because of changes in zoning. (See Deer Park Civil Association v. City of Chicago, 347 Ill. App. 346, 106 N.E.2d 823.) Only if the party to whom the permit was issued has been actively misled by city officials will an estoppel arise. (Excellent Builders, Inc. v. Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank, 15 Ill. App. 3d 832, 305 N.E.2d 273.) Estoppel will lie against a municipality in a matter of the exercise of its governmental functions only in extraordinary circumstances. (Solomon v. City of Evanston, 29 Ill. App. 3d 782, 331 N.E.2d 380.) I submit that in the present case circumstances do not warrant applying the doctrine of estoppel, especially where lives may be jeopardized by its application. It is apparent from the record that the trial judge was irritated with the city for their lack of preparation for trial. While I share the trial court’s disapproval of the city’s conduct, such disapproval was not an appropriate reason for excluding and ignoring the city’s objections to the proposed plans. The majority relies on People ex rel. Shell Oil Co. v. City of Chicago, 9 Ill. App. 3d 242, 292 N.E.2d 84. I would note that in Shell Oil, the defendants were allowed to introduce trial testimony and a report that one driveway of the proposed gas station could prove a potential hazard to children crossing the street, but the trial court apparently accorded such evidence little weight in issuing the writ of mandamus. In light of such facts, subsequent statements by the court are of questionable authority. Even assuming the validity of such statements in Shell Oil in light of these facts, here, defendant’s answer denied petitioner’s assertion that the proposed building plans were legal and proper. I believe that such a denial entitled defendant to show any manner in which the plans were not legal or proper. Furthermore, the defendants attempted to show that the fire objections were not originally made because until defendant’s objections to the lack of space for a proposed road were resolved, the placement and/or number of buildings was speculative. Since resolution of the preliminary objection on the road might affect other matters of inquiry, such as fire hazards, the defendants properly refrained from examining the plans in full until a trial on the plans in their entirety appeared imminent. In summary I believe petitioner failed to establish a clear and undeniable right to a building permit and site approval, and the trial court erred in failing to allow defendants to admit evidence that the proposed building contained fire hazards.