Court Opinion

ID: 9745038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:29:39.027527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:54.773462
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE TRAPP, dissenting: The facts presented in this record are substantially identical and comparable to those found in Duggan v. County of Cook (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 107, 324 N.E.2d 406, La Salle National Bank v. County of Lake (1975), 27 Ill. App. 3d 10, 325 N.E.2d 105 (leave to appeal denied), and La Salle National Bank v. County of Will (1976), 38 Ill. App. 3d 622, 347 N.E.2d 854. In each of such cases it was determined that the zoning as applied was arbitrary and unreasonable. The fact that there is testimony and opinion opposing this requested classification does not necessarily make the issue debatable or necessarily require a conclusion that the plaintiff has failed in meeting the burden of proof. Duggan v. County of Cook; La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 40, 145 N.E.2d 65. We note that the requested classification was approved by the Zoning Roard of Appeals. There is no contention that the proposed use injures any existing or established residential use as was the fact in the First National Bank v. City of Springfield (1976), 42 Ill. App. 3d 566, 356 N.E.2d 367, and in Tomasek v. City of Des Plaines (1976), 64 Ill. 2d 172, 354 N.E.2d 899, and there is no evidence that the value of any other property will be diminished by the change of classification. There is no evidence of a better or higher use of the property, or that any use other than agriculture has ever been considered or established by any planning entity. (La Salle National Bank v. County of Will (1976), 38 Ill. App. 3d 622, 347 N.E.2d 854.) We find no evidence that the use is incompatible with the surrounding uses. Lakeland Bluff, Inc. v. County of Will (1969), 114 Ill. App. 2d 267, 252 N.E.2d 765. A complaint concerning a potential increase of traffic appears to be raised in behalf of a village a mile distant. The record does not show that the traffic from the proposed development will necessarily intrude into the village and traffic is a factor “in all but the most sheltered neighborhoods and is constantly getting worse,” and is not entitled to much weight. La Salle National Bank v. Village of Skokie (1962), 26 Ill. 2d 143, 186 N.E.2d 46. Here, as in Glassey v. County of Tazewell (1973); 11 Ill. App. 3d 1087, 297 N.E.2d 235, and La Salle National Bank v. County of Lake (1975), 27 Ill. App. 3d 10, 325 N.E.2d 105, there is no imposition of sewerage loads or water demands upon any municipal entity. The evidence is that the development will provide such facilities and must meet the standards of the Illinois Department of Public Health as to sewers, public health and water supply recreation, and that such facilities are subject to regulation and inspection. An adjacent comparable development by plaintiffs has met and does meet such standards. Defendant introduced some evidence of the present school enrollment and the crowded condition in existing schools. This development, however, is expected to be essentially used by older people. School enrollment problems are not to be deemed conclusive (Duggan v. County of Cook (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 107, 324 N.E.2d 406), and it is said: “[T]hat additional burdens on responsible governmental bodies may not properly justify otherwise unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory restrictions on the use of private property.” First National Bank v. Village of Skokie (1960), 85 Ill. App. 2d 326, 339, 229 N.E.2d 378, 385; Lakeland Bluff, Inc. v. County of Will (1969), 114 Ill. App. 2d 267, 278, 252 N.E.2d 765, 770. Under the standards established in La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 40, 46, 47, 145 N.E.2d 65, 69, the ordinance as applied here is arbitrary and discriminatory for the record shows no incompatible existing use or zoning of nearby property, no diminution of existing property values, no supportable claim of injury to public health, safety or welfare and no relevant gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the property owner. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.