Scanlon v. Faitz

389 N.E.2d 571, 75 Ill. 2d 472, 27 Ill. Dec. 507, 1979 Ill. LEXIS 287

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Decided: April 18, 1979
• Docket: 50633
• Status: Published

Opinions

MR. JUSTICE WARD

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiffs, Thomas Scanlon and James Hughes, brought suit in the circuit court of Cook County seeking a writ of mandamus directing Karl Faitz, in his capacity as the director of building and zoning of the village of Oak Lawn, and his codefendant, the village of Oak Lawn (Village), to allow the plaintiffs to proceed with the construction of two houses for which excavations had been completed. Acting upon an agreed set of facts and briefs, the circuit court ordered the writ to issue. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the cause for a full hearing to determine whether under the circumstances the doctrine of estoppel ought to be applied against the defendants. (27 Ill. App. 3d 1072 (abstract).) After the hearing ordered by the appellate court, the circuit court again ordered that mandamus issue. The appellate court reversed and remanded (57 Ill. App. 3d 649), and we granted the plaintiff’s petition for leave to appeal (65 Ill. 2d R. 315).

Scanlon and Hughes are home builders. In 1973, they made a package purchase of five parcels of real estate, which included three contiguous 25-foot lots within the Village. On May 26, 1971, a predecessor in title to the three lots had submitted a written petition to the Village’s board of appeals for zoning variations. The predecessor asked for variations from the Village’s minimum 50-foot-frontage requirement to allow construction of two houses with frontages of only 3714 feet upon the three 25-foot lots. One week later, on June 2, 1971, the board of appeals held a public hearing and recommended that the variations be allowed. The board did not have jurisdiction itself to allow the variations because the variations sought exceeded 10%, which was the maximum the board could allow under its enabling ordinance. The matter was referred to the Village’s board of trustees (see Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 24, pars. 11 —13—5, 11—13—6), and at a regular meeting of the board of trustees on June 15, 1971, a motion to follow the recommendation of the board of appeals was adopted.

On June 14, 1973, Scanlon filed applications for building permits to construct two houses; the permits were issued by Faitz on July 24, 1973. When the plaintiffs began excavating, a number of area property owners, all of whose houses were on lots with frontages of at least 50 feet, immediately complained. They prepared petitions, and some property owners appeared to object at meetings of the board of trustees and of the Planning and Development Commission. Pursuant to a directive from the board of trustees, Faitz notified the plaintiffs by telephone to stop building activities, and they promptly did so. Because the plaintiffs had not complied with certain procedures required by a local ordinance regulating the subdivision of land, the matter was later referred by the board of trustees to the Planning and Development Commission, which voted unanimously to deny the requested zoning variations. This suit followed.

The plaintiffs contend here that the defendants are estopped from blocking completion of the two houses because they relied on conduct of Village officers, viz., the actions of Village officials in 1971 to grant requested variations, and the issuance of building permits by the Village, and because the plaintiffs will otherwise suffer a substantial financial loss. The defendants argue that the Illinois Municipal Code requires passage of an ordinance to validate a zoning variation where the power to grant the variation is reserved to the municipality’s corporate authority. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 24, par. 11—13—5.) Because the board of trustees only approved the recommendation of the board of appeals by the adoption of a motion and did not enact an ordinance, they contend that the board of trustees was free to revoke the illegally issued building permits.

There have been circumstances under which application of the doctrine of estoppel in pais has been allowed against municipalities (e.g., Cities Service Oil Co. v. City of Des Plaines (1961), 21 Ill. 2d 157; City of El Paso v. Hoagland (1906), 224 Ill. 263; Richards v. City of Highland (1978), 59 Ill. App. 3d 692; City of Marseilles v. Hustis (1975), 27 Ill. App. 3d 454; People ex rel. Beverly Bank v. Hill (1966), 75 Ill. App. 2d 69; Wehrmeister v. Carlman (1958), 17 Ill. App. 2d 171), but we do not consider it should be allowed under the circumstances here. The statute requiring public notice of hearings on variation requests was not observed, and we do not judge that the plaintiffs showed a clear right to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See White v. Board of Appeals (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 378, 381-82; Ganley v. City of Chicago (1974), 18 Ill. App. 3d 248.

The appellate court properly pointed out the public interest in the matter of petitions for zoning variations. Here a fair opportunity to present objections to the granting of the variations was never had by interested members of the public. Section 11—13—6 of the fllinois Municipal Code provides:

“No variation shall be made by the board of appeals in municipalities of 500,000 or more population or by ordinance in municipalities of lesser population except in a specific case and after a public hearing before the board of appeals of which there shall be a notice of the time and place of the hearing published at least once, not more than 30 nor less than 15 days before the hearing, in one or more newspapers published in the municipality, or, if no newspaper is published therein, then in one or more newspapers with a general circulation within the municipality. ***” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 24, par. 11-13-6.)

Only one week elapsed between the filing of a petition for the zoning variations with the board of appeals on May 26, 1971, and the hearing and recommendation to grant the variations on June 2, 1971. There is no evidence in the record of any such prior notice of hearing having been given. Indeed it appears it could not have been given, because the petition for the variations was presented only seven days prior to the hearing.

The noncompliance by the Village with the statutorily mandated procedures for granting of the variations thus went beyond the failure of the Village to have enacted a validating ordinance, and it resulted in a denial of participation in the consideration of the petition for variation by members of the public who might be immediately and adversely affected by the allowance of the petition. Actual notice to homeowners in the area was given only when excavation commenced. Objecting property owners took steps at once to register their complaints with the Village authorities.

Under the circumstances here, we cannot say that this is a situation where fairness and justice require application of the equitable doctrine of estoppel. The circuit court erred in ordering issuance of a writ of mandamus. The appellate court was correct in reversing the judgment. We consider that under the circumstances the appellate court was correct in remanding the cause to the circuit court for entry of an order directing the Village to refund the permit fees paid by the plaintiffs for the invalid permits. The judgment of the appellate court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.