Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
River Forest State Bank v. Village of Hillside
Citations: 129 N.E.2d 171; 6 Ill. 2d 451; 1955 Ill. LEXIS 313Docket: 33547
Court: Illinois Supreme Court; September 23, 1955; Illinois; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed a circuit court judgment declaring a village ordinance invalid as applied to the Proviso Manor subdivision, which mandated public sewer facilities before issuing building permits. The case arose after the village of Hillside annexed a 20-acre tract and approved a subdivision plat, with plaintiffs asserting that the village knew there were no public sewer facilities available. In reliance on prior village ordinances allowing septic tanks, the plaintiffs invested approximately $20,000 in a water system for potential homes. In April 1954, the village enacted the disputed ordinance, which prohibited building permits without public sewer access. The plaintiffs argued that enforcement of the ordinance would be confiscatory, as the nearest sewer outlet was over a mile away and unsuitable for connection. The village contested the plaintiffs' claims, asserting the ordinance served the community's best interests. The circuit court ruled that the ordinance's enforcement would effectively confiscate the plaintiffs' property due to the prohibitive costs of obtaining sewer facilities, thus rendering it unconstitutional as applied to the subdivision. The judgment assesses the validity of a village ordinance mandating public sewer facilities before issuing building permits, grounded in the village's police power to protect resident health and safety. The ordinance is generally valid, but its application can be deemed arbitrary and unreasonable, potentially leading to property confiscation. In this case, the plaintiffs' property is situated approximately 1.75 miles from the nearest sewer outlet, making the financial burden of constructing necessary sewer facilities substantial. The plaintiffs invested around $20,000 in water mains based on the village's prior conduct, including the approval of a subdivision plat without sewer facilities and the issuance of permits for septic tanks. The absence of sewer markings on the plat and the larger-than-required lot sizes for septic systems further support the plaintiffs’ reasonable inference that septic tanks would be acceptable. Requiring the plaintiffs to incur significant costs for public sewer facilities, after their reliance on the village’s actions, is viewed as a confiscation of property. Therefore, the ordinance is deemed unreasonable and invalid as applied to the plaintiffs' property, leading to an affirmation of the circuit court's declaratory judgment.