{ "id": 2758129, "name": "Mobil Oil Corporation et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The City of Rockford et al., Defendants-Appellees-(Dayton A. Ekstrom et al., Intervenors-Appellees.)", "name_abbreviation": "Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Rockford", "decision_date": "1972-11-20", "docket_number": "No. 71-371", "first_page": "649", "last_page": "654", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "8 Ill. App. 3d 649" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "10 Ill.2d 604", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2724913 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "608" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/10/0604-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Ill.2d 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2791012 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "494" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/22/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Ill.2d 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2787518 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/22/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ill.2d 116", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5357392 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "123-124" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/27/0116-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 Ill.2d 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2823202 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "27" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/29/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Ill.2d 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2799943 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "502" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/24/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 Ill.2d 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5352036 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "45" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/25/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ill.2d 526", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5355482 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "531" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/26/0526-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill.2d 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5361500 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "249" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/28/0246-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 Ill.App.2d 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2572758 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "340" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/77/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 Ill.App.2d 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1583516 ], "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "435" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/120/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 Ill.2d 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2826003 ], "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "239" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/30/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 Ill.2d 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2826616 ], "year": 1957, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174-175" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/30/0170-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 596, "char_count": 9460, "ocr_confidence": 0.763, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4105717729999802e-07, "percentile": 0.6468639677448377 }, "sha256": "4efbaddfd736700e0ddfd0819ff0260609b2627882ed62ff596e74b83c58c788", "simhash": "1:2855a6533d507ddd", "word_count": 1460 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:39:49.359959+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Mobil Oil Corporation et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The City of Rockford et al., Defendants-Appellees\u2014(Dayton A. Ekstrom et al., Intervenors-Appellees.)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE THOMAS J. MORAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiffs applied to the City of Rockford for a rezoning of specific property, owned by the individual plaintiffs but optioned to the Mobil Oil Corporation, and requested that said Corporation be permitted to erect a gasoline station on such property. A committee of aldermen recommended the zoning change but the Council as a whole rejected the recommendation by a vote of 12 to 8. Plaintiffs then brought an action for declaratory judgment seeking to have a certain zoning ordinance of the City of Rockford declared invalid as applied to plaintiffs\u2019 property. The validity of the ordinance was upheld, the requested relief denied and plaintiffs appeal.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 property is located in the southeast quadrant of the five-point intersection indicated on the following diagram. (See p. 651.)\nThe intersection and surrounding streets are presently the subject of an improvement plan which will convert the site to a four-point intersection. In execution of the plan, part of plaintiffs\u2019 property will be taken. Median strips will be installed to bar vehicles from crossing the road except at designated points.\nTestimony revealed that these intersecting streets are now, and will remain, some of the most heavily travelled in the City.\nThe property in question, part of the Log Cabin Arbor Subdivision, is comprised of four lots facing Alpine Road plus a 45-foot extension into the three lots immediately east (facing SUvan Road) which lots are also owned by plaintiffs. The Alpine Road lots are zoned for local business; the Silvan Road lots (and all property east for several blocks) are zoned A-residential.\nLocal business zoning permits property to be used for hospitals, auto courts, roofing and plastering shops, printing shops, restaurants (not drive-in types), plumbing shops, hotels, dairies, dyeing and cleaning works, laundries, banks, laboratories, electrical repair shops and 31 other businesses.\nThe ordinance pertinent to general commercial districts (sec. 44 \u2014 11) deviates in form from the preceding zoning ordinances and, rather than setting forth permissible uses, lists ten prohibitions, the tenth reading:\n\u201cAny manufacture or treatment whatsoever, except such light manufactures as are carried on within entirely enclosed buildings and which create no objectionable noise, odor, smoke, fumes, vapor, dust, or gas. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to exclude a newspaper establishment, a car barn, auction rooms, battery service stations, gasoline and oil stations, parking lots and used car lots \u2014 commercial, public garages, tin smith shops, tire repairing shops, drive-in amusement places, drive-in recreation buildings, drive-in restaurants, or an electric sub-station from a general commercial district.\u201d\nDuring trial, the staff director of the City-County Planning Commission testified on behalf of the City and distinguished the zoning classifications stating that the local business classification permitted businesses primarily intended for neighborhood convenience, those which were generally considered of less nuisance than businesses permitted in the general commercial district. The latter types were said to be those businesses which are highway or automobile oriented and characterized by noise and light. The same witness stated that there was concern for maintaining the residential character of the subdivision and that the local business classification of the subject lots was more compatible to that intent than a general commercial classification.\nThe record indicates that within the immediate and/or general area of the intersection, and. on property zoned identically to plaintiffs\u2019, there is a large shopping center, a drive-in cleaner, a realty office, pizza, chicken and hamburger eating places, a tire dealer, a super market and a franchise donut shop. In the area just northwest of the intersection, two gas stations are also established on property zoned for local business.\nImmediately west of the intersection (directly opposite the property here in question) and in an area running generally northwest to southeast, various properties have been zoned to the general commercial classification. Thereon are located such businesses as a restaurant, an automobile center, a realtor and four gas stations. One gas station is across the street from plaintiffs\u2019 property, one diagonally northwest, and one, just to the south.\nIt is well settled that there is a presumption favoring the validity of an ordinance. But an ordinance will be found invalid if a petitioner proves that, as applied to his property, the ordinance is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious, bearing no relation to public health, safety, morals and general welfare. (Urann v. Village of Hinsdale (1964), 30 Ill.2d 170, 174-175; Wehrmeister v. County of Du Page (1957), 10 Ill.2d 604, 608.) In a case such as this, it is of paramount importance to determine whether the property in question is zoned in conformity with surrounding existing uses and whether these uses are uniform and established. Chi. Title & Trust Co. v. City of Harvey (1964), 30 Ill.2d 237, 239; Mid-West Emery Freight v. City of Chicago (1970), 120 Ill.App.2d 425, 435; Dixon v. County of Kane (1966), 77 Ill.App.2d 338, 340.\nIn the case before us, it is noted that four gas stations are established, not as non-conforming exceptions, but on property zoned for general commercial. That property is, in some instances, immediately adjacent to residential!/ zoned areas. In two other instances, gas stations have been permitted on property zoned local business, despite the fact that such stations are adjacent to residential property. Thus, past performance indicates that the City has neither consistently maintained a buffer area of local business zoning to protect the residential character of the subdivision, nor barred gas stations from area proximate to residential property.\nPast performance and current uses also defeat the City\u2019s argument that adherence to the present zoning classification of plaintiffs\u2019 property is intended to protect the area from the nuisance of highway or automobile-oriented uses. Most of the businesses already in the area, and those permitted under the local business classification, are, like a gas station, dependent upon automobile traffic. In any case, it would be impossible to avoid the nuisance of automobile traffic at the junction of heavily trafficked, arterial streets.\nThe arbitrariness in the granting of zoning classifications is accentuated by the fact that the general commercial property directly across the street from plaintiffs\u2019 property, now houses a gas station and may be used for light industry.\nIn view of these factors and evidence in the record indicating that modern service stations, by their design and use, have a minimum nuisanee factor, the City\u2019s refusal to permit the petitioned use- is arbitrary and unreasonable.\nEvidence further shows that the subject property is worth $239,600 for service station use; as presently zoned, its value is $147,600. Where it is shown that a substantial loss in value results from the retention of current zoning, the validity of the restriction is tested by whether it promotes the general welfare. (Franz v. Village of Morton Grove (1963), 28 Ill.2d 246, 249.) An appraiser, testifying on behalf of plaintiffs herein, indicated there would be little or no loss to the value of adjoining residential properties if the station were constructed.\nNone of the adjoining homeowners testified in opposition to the proposed use, nor was there testimony against the use by any of the several intervening residents of the subdivision. The City\u2019s expressed concern that construction of this service station would threaten the residential character of the area, does not seem to be shared by the residents.\nThe record affords no evidence to show that a substantial public interest would be served by denial of the proposed use. Where the public gain is small compared to the hardship imposed on the property owner, the presumption of the validity of the ordinance will be overcome. West-field v. City of Chicago (1962), 26 Ill.2d 526, 531; Peo. ex rel. Chi. Title & Trust Co. v. Reiter (1962), 25 Ill.2d 41, 45; Marquette Nat. Bk. v. County of Cook (1962), 24 Ill.2d 497, 502.\nFinding no reasonable basis for adhering to the present zoning classification of the subject premises, we hold that the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs\u2019 property. The judgment of Circuit Court of Winnebago County is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant the relief prayed.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nSEIDENFELD, P. J., and ABRAHAMSON, J., concur.\nFactors in making this determination have been frequently stated. Tillitson v. City of Urbana (1963), 29 Ill.2d 22, 27; Chi. Title & Trust Co. v. Vil. Wilmette (1963), 27 Ill.2d 116, 123-124; Elmhurst Nat. Bk. v. City of Chicago, (1961), 22 Ill.2d 396, 402; Hartung v. Village of Skokie (1961), 22 Ill.2d 485, 494.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE THOMAS J. MORAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Martenson & Donohue, of Rockford, for appellants.", "A. Curtis Washburn, Assistant City Attorney and William E. Collins, Legal Director, both of Rockford, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Mobil Oil Corporation et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The City of Rockford et al., Defendants-Appellees\u2014(Dayton A. Ekstrom et al., Intervenors-Appellees.)\n(No. 71-371;\nSecond District \u2014\nNovember 20, 1972.\nRehearing denied December 27, 1972.\nMartenson & Donohue, of Rockford, for appellants.\nA. Curtis Washburn, Assistant City Attorney and William E. Collins, Legal Director, both of Rockford, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0649-01", "first_page_order": 671, "last_page_order": 676 }