Oak forest mobile home park oak forest il
Plaintiff is the owner of the entire subject property which is located in the vicinity of th Street and Laramie Avenue within the City. For better understanding, a plat of the entire property is presented herewith. The property consists of two separate parcels. Parcel One, generally located more to the south, consists of Lots 98 to inclusive. As appears from the plat, the southeastern corner of the parcel is excluded. Plaintiff acquired this property by deeds dated September 1, , and December 30, At that time, and since approximately or before, this portion of the subject property has been used as a trailer park, except Lot which was adapted to this use shortly after its acquisition.
Parcel Two consists of Lots 97 and , which constitute the entire northern portion of the property. The extreme southwestern corner of Lot is not included. As indicated, Lot has a foot frontage on Laramie Avenue, and Lot 97 has a frontage of feet on LeClaire, which is the next street to the east.
The total length of these two lots from east to west is feet. Plaintiff acquired Lot 97 by a deed dated May 25, , and purchased Lot during It is next necessary to consider the zoning of the subject property. The situation is rather unique, as determination of the existing zoning classification raises contested issues. Plaintiff purchased Parcel One as an operating trailer park. It is undisputed that the City had issued a license to plaintiff to operate the park for , and Plaintiff made applications for subsequent years but the licenses were never issued.
Plaintiff alleged that the property was partly zoned B-3 for general business uses and partly R-2 for single family uses. The City admitted this in its answer. However, both sides introduced evidence of the actual zoning, and, after hearing all of the pertinent evidence, the trial court found that the entire tract was zoned R-3, a general residence district. In connection with proof of the zoning, neither party offered a copy of an ordinance certified by the city clerk under the city seal.
However, a deputy clerk of the City produced a large bound pamphlet, or volume, consisting of pages labeled "Zoning Ordinance Oak Forest Illinois. It is in ordinance form containing the ordaining clause required by statute. There is no map appended to this copy of the ordinance. No subsequent or later zoning ordinance of the City appears in the record. The statute further provides Ill. Illinois Central R. Warriner, Ill. The statute also provides that a new municipal zoning ordinance may be enacted only after public hearing and submission of a proposed ordinance by a zoning commission appointed by the mayor or president subject to confirmation by the corporate authorities.
The deputy clerk testified that she could not locate any ordinance or resolution establishing a zoning commission for the ordinance. She presented a copy of a legal notice for a zoning hearing before the "Zoning Commission of the Village of Oak Forest" to be held on September 18, , without any certificate of the making of such publication. She testified that the notice was published in a local newspaper on September 3, In addition, she produced a series of minutes of meetings of the board of trustees which took place when the City was still a village, as well as minutes of the planning commission and of the zoning board of appeals.
One set of these minutes recites the holding of public hearings and the making of a report to the board of trustees recommending adoption of the ordinance above described as No. The minutes also show adoption of the ordinance in pamphlet form by a motion which was approved by four trustees, stating their names, with two trustees absent, whose names are stated, and without dissent. The ordinance thus produced in pamphlet form is presumptively valid and the burden rested upon plaintiff to overcome that presumption by contrary evidence. Bigham v. City of Rock Island, Ill.
This was not done. In addition, the record here amply shows proper recordation of the vote of the individual trustees on adoption of the zoning ordinance. Village of Bourbonnais v. Herbert, 86 Ill. There is a statutory requirement that corporate authorities publish, not later than March 31 of each year, a map which will clearly show existing zoning uses and divisions, restrictions, regulations and classifications for the preceding year.
If there are no changes in zoning uses during any year, no map is required for that year. This map constitutes the official zoning map. No zoning map is appended to the copies of Ordinance No. However, section V-B-1 thereof describes a zoning district map dated September 23, , which is incorporated and made a part of the ordinance with the same force and effect as if fully set forth therein. There is in evidence a pamphlet copy of Building and Zoning Ordinances of the City, approved in April of prior to incorporation of the City when it was a village.
There is a zoning map appended to this ordinance. It shows the area of the entire subject property to be zoned as a business district as regards the southern portion thereof, and as a residential district as regards the northern portion and more recently acquired Parcel Two. That ordinance, however, was supplanted by the completely new ordinance of September 23, , known as No. There is in evidence a zoning district map dated of the entire village.
This map shows the entire property to be zoned under R-3 or general residence district. What appears to be at least a part of the area here involved also bears the capital letters "T. There are two other maps offered in evidence by plaintiff. One is a zoning district map containing the same designations as the map above described as regards official signatures, together with a statement "Revised January 1, Another zoning district map has similar designations as regards the facsimile signatures of the mayor and city clerk of the City.
It also states thereon "Adopted by the City Board of Trustees. The map purports to be issued in March of , which is the month designated for issuance of zoning maps by the statute above quoted. The same statute provides for notice by publication in a newspaper published in the community prior to such hearings. It has been held that the amendment is a mandatory requirement and that even a resolution by a city council "cannot substitute for the passage of a formal ordinance which is required by the zoning statute. Koraska, 91 Ill.
Also, the clerk was unable to produce any ordinance, resolution or other evidence of approval by the City authorities of the two subsequent maps dated January 1, and March Thus, all maps, after the one dated September 23, , appear to lack official authority for their publication. In addition, it does not appear that any proper amendatory zoning action was taken by the City with reference to the subject property at any time after the adoption of Ordinance No.
The city clerk could not produce any evidence of a public hearing regarding change of zoning of the subject property at any time after September 23, It has been held that the publication of a zoning map "does not constitute the passage of an ordinance giving validation, as variations, to such differences as may exist between the classifications appearing on the map and those existing under the local municipal zoning ordinances. A number of experts called by plaintiff and by defendant testified that the portion of the property last acquired by plaintiff, above described as Parcel Two, is zoned R-2 and the balance is zoned B In our opinion, the evidence shows, as the trial court specifically found, that the property in the proposed addition to the subject property Parcel Two is zoned R-3, as a general residence district which includes multiple apartments within the list of proper uses.
Parcel One of the subject property, the southern portion thereof, is now used exclusively as a trailer court. Parcel Two, the northern portion, consisting of Lots 97 and , is now vacant. Immediately abutting to the north of the northern boundary of the subject property there is a series of lots which front upon th Street. According to the official zoning map dated September 23, , these lots are zoned R-2 for single-family residence use.
There are about eight homes built upon certain of these lots. Virtually all of them have rear yards and face to the north upon th Street. LeClaire Street constitutes the eastern boundary of the subject property with the exception of the small piece on the southeast corner which is not included. Parcel Two, being vacant, has a frontage of feet on LeClaire. On the east side of LeClaire, progressing in a southerly direction from th Street, there is an area of single-family residences, then a parking lot and then an apartment complex of units.
The northeast corner of th Street and LeClaire is occupied by a gasoline station. The southern boundary of virtually all of the subject property, except for the omitted portion at the extreme southeast tip, is formed by th Street, a four-lane highway designated as State Route No. On the southeast corner of LeClaire and th Street is another apartment complex consisting of five buildings containing units.
Progressing now to the block comprising the south side of th Street, between LeClaire and Laramie, there is a series of business uses such as a real estate office, jewelry store, a fine-arts store, a bar and an automobile repair shop. It should be noted that, although the official map of September 23, , shows th Street in the area of the subject property as being included within an R-3 zone, there is evidence that on both sides of this street the uses are predominantly business and commercial.
The depth of these uses on both sides is not constant but varies. One parcel, feet deep, is used as an automobile dealership at a location about one-half mile west of the subject property. There is a small shopping center built on the southwest corner of th Street and Laramie. Laramie Street is an improved highway with four traffic lanes. On the northeast corner of th Street and Laramie, which is not included within the subject property, there is a restaurant in the process of construction. North of the restaurant, and south of Lot , there are three single-family homes fronting on Laramie.
As would be expected, the testimony of expert witnesses differed as to the highest and best use of the subject property.
Blocked IP Address
John H. Pittroff, Jr. In his opinion, the highest and best use of the entire subject property was for a mobile-home park. However, he conditioned this opinion upon the requirement that there should be a reasonably low density of use. He cited the mobile homes and mobile-home-park ordinance of Cook County to the effect that each site in a mobile-home park had a minimum-size requirement of square feet, with square feet for parks existing prior to August 21, Cook County Ordinance of June 5, , sec.
After visiting the plaintiff's park, he expressed the opinion that the density of mobile homes there should not exceed 10 units per acre. This would be equivalent to about square feet per site. In his opinion, if the condition of low density combined with a proper site plan were met, no detriment would result as regards the value of the single-family homes located in the surrounding area. Another qualified real estate appraiser called by plaintiff, Joseph A.
Nowicki, expressed the opinion that the highest and best use of Parcel Two was for an extension of the mobile home park presently existing on Parcel One. As reasons for his opinion, he considered the existence of the trailer park on the southern portion of the subject property; the fact that th Street is predominantly a business street with commercial enterprises to a varying depth on both sides of the street; and, finally, expansion of the use of the trailer park to the north would permit a better design, a better traffic pattern and would relieve congestion in the entire park.
In his opinion, this expansion of the trailer park would not have any adverse effect on the adjoining single-family homes. He also expressed the opinion that Parcel Two was not feasible for use for single-family development. This opinion was predicated upon the assumption that the present zoning is R His reason was that the City ordinance requires 60 feet of frontage for each single-family home.
This would permit one home to be built fronting on Laramie Street and two on LeClaire and would leave the remaining nine-tenths of an acre land-locked. In addition, he expressed the opinion that this area could not be used for apartment development because the City ordinance requires 75 feet of frontage for this use. Plaintiff also called Paul Meves, a qualified consulting civil engineer. He pointed out technical difficulties that would arise in use of Parcel Two for single-family or for apartment use.
These problems are caused in part by the irregular shape of Lot , comprising the western portion of the property, and in part by the absence of a street across the northern edge of the parcel. Installation of such a street with the required width of 60 feet would seriously impair the utility of the property.
The last expert called by plaintiff was Robert Grossman, a qualified city planner. He expressed the opinion that the highest and best use of Parcel Two was an extension of the existing trailer park to the north. In his opinion, this property was not feasible for use as an apartment development for townhouses because of lack of access and proper space for adequate parking. This witness also testified to the feasibility of a proper layout and design of the entire trailer park including the expanded area.
Plaintiff introduced in evidence a plat of survey indicating the location of each of the proposed sites for mobile homes upon the entire subject property. The expert witness testified that, using this sketch as a basis, he had prepared an overlay for proposed use of the entire subject property as a mobile-home park. The expert pointed out that at present Parcel One is operated as a trailer park and includes 52 units on 2. The sketch overlay plan presented by him, and received in evidence, indicates expansion of the use to Parcel Two which would include 14 additional mobile-home units on a total of 1.
Defendant's witness Pittroff had testified that this density would be acceptable and, in fact, would constitute the highest and best use of Parcel Two and would not have a detrimental effect on the single-family homes to the north. It should be noted that, considering the entire subject property, the density of the entire use would be a total of 66 units on 4.
The proposed sketch shows an access roadway 24 feet wide running in an east and west direction between LeClaire and Laramie. The planner also envisioned a solid fence on the north boundary of this roadway which would be a separation or buffer between the trailer park and the backyards of the homes fronting on th Street. The plat also shows access roads of similar size across the southern boundary of the property fronting on th Street and also through the entire property to provide ease of access. There would also be provision for an open area or patio, some guest parking and a trash collection station, all of which are lacking in the present trailer park.
The planner testified that he had considered the residential homes in the area in arriving at his opinion of highest and best use. He characterized the proposed driveway on the north as providing a "firm separation" between the trailer park and the single-family homes. Thus, in his opinion, expansion of the trailer park in accordance with his sketch would have no economic effect on existing homes. The City called William McCann, a qualified broker and appraiser. In his opinion, the highest and best use of Parcel Two was an R-2 or single-family use as regards the frontage of 60 feet on Laramie Avenue.
Find Real Estate, Homes for Sale, Apartments & Houses for Rent - esytemydulex.cf®
He stated that the entire remaining area of the parcel should be used for low-rise multiple-family dwellings. He detailed the various factors which entered into his opinion, such as the size and shape of the property; the presence of single-family residences immediately to the north; the existence of the trailer park on Parcel One; the large apartment construction on the east side of LeClaire; the widening and trend of th Street and of Laramie; proximity of schools, shops and transportation; need for multiple dwellings in the area; tax benefits to the City and the plan submitted by plaintiff.
In his opinion, the ideal density for mobile homes is from seven to nine units upon each acre. Upon examination of the mobile-home park, he expressed the opinion that it was established prior to The homes to the north of Parcel Two were built after the establishment of the park.
- entertainment apps for samsung galaxy s3.
- easiest smartphone to use for seniors;
- Oak Forest Mobile Homes Park & Sales th St Oak Forest, IL Unknown - MapQuest;
- download true caller application for mobile?
- Mobile Home Parks near Oak Forest, IL: Listed.
- os windows mobile 6.5 download.
- download app bbm untuk samsung galaxy young.
Therefore, the depreciatory effect had occurred prior to the building of the homes, but expansion of the park would augment the depreciation. He had knowledge of the restaurant in the process of construction on the northeast corner of Laramie and th Street and the fact that single-family homes along the western portion of the subject property would abut this construction. However, he felt that this would not depreciate these homes, because the zoning of the restaurant area was in effect before the construction.
- samsung galaxy pocket sims 3 apk;
- sony ericsson mobile w150i games!
In this regard, he considered that the homes facing on the south side of th Street were built immediately next to land zoned for single-family uses. He testified on the supposition that Parcel One was zoned B-3 and Parcel Two zoned R-3 in accordance with the latest zoning map which the trial court and this court have rejected. This witness expressed no opinion as to the value of Parcel Two under different types of zoning or uses. In addition, he did not present any economic study or opinion upon the feasibility of devoting Parcel Two to residential uses.
The City also called Alan P. Trayser, a qualified planning consultant. He expressed the opinion that the highest and best use of Parcel Two was, as stated by the previous witness, for a single-family residence fronting upon Laramie Street with the balance of the tract to be used for an apartment building. This witness made no economic analysis as to the return that an owner could reasonably expect if Parcel Two were to be devoted to the use he suggested.
Also, not being an appraiser, he gave no opinion as to the comparative value of Parcel Two if devoted to different uses. This witness also presented an alternate suggestion. He would approve the relocation of the mobile homes presently situated on Parcel One by spreading them out so as to utilize all of Parcel Two except the western 60 feet thereof fronting on Laramie Street, which could be used for a single-family home.
He was not familiar with the cost of relocating all of the trailers and did not know where storm sewers, water lines or sanitary sewers were located with reference to Parcel Two. His opinion was based upon the same assumption as used by the previous witness that an apartment building could be erected on Parcel Two which would comprise 20 apartments units.
However, he conceded that under City ordinances 20 units would not be permitted. In addition, there would be difficulty of access from LeClaire to a proposed apartment building. This could only be accomplished by creating an access road with a turnaround which would require backing up by every automobile which sought to enter and leave.
A statement of additional evidence is pertinent at this point. The building commission of the City testified that the plot plan suggested by plaintiff utilizing the entire subject property would reduce the congestion in the center of the park, as each proposed site upon Parcel Two would be approximately square feet in area. Also, in his opinion, demolition and removal of several cottages now present upon Parcel One would improve the park as regards health, safety and welfare and would increase the distance between trailers.
The mayor of the City also testified that development of the entire site in accordance with plaintiff's suggested plan would reduce the danger to health and public safety by reducing the density. He agreed that demolition of the cottages would be an improvement and testified that he had a report that application for demolition had been made. The statement is made in plaintiff's briefs, and not contradicted, that such demolition has been accomplished. In addition, both of the experts called by the City testified that a reduction of density of units upon the trailer park, relieved by the use of Parcel Two for the purpose of dispersing existing units, would tend to depreciate surrounding property values.
It should be pointed out that these experts apparently based their opinions upon an assumption of a density of approximately 10 mobile units per acre. This is the density which is called for in the plan submitted by plaintiff as regards Parcel Two, which is the closest area to single-family homes in the vicinity.
This type of housing is unique in that it provides comfortable dwelling at low cost. There is no other mobile-home park located within the City, and the closest establishment of this type is near the city of Frankfort, some 3 or 4 miles away. The courts of Illinois should take judicial notice of this situation which has been stated as a legislative finding in the new Illinois Mobile Home Parks Statute effective September 8, The legislature noted the serious housing shortage in Illinois; difficulty of new construction for moderate- and low-income citizens because of rising construction costs; depletion of existing housing by demolition and advances in the construction of mobile homes so that proper regulation and licensing thereof could contribute to quality housing for the citizens of Illinois.
One of them expressed the opinion that he was opposed to expansion of the trailer park because it would reduce the value of his home. The other witness testified that she had placed her home upon the market for sale. I am not very familiar with that area, so I am not sure what towns are in the immediate area. Drover - LOL OP - how are you going to work, go to school, and live in a trailer park with a new baby all at the same time? I think it's time to make some tough decisions..
Swallow your pride and stay with your mom.
OAK FOREST MOBILE HOME PARK v. CITY OF OAK FOREST
No matter how difficult it is, it's the lesser of the evils. When your baby is 6 months old, reevaluate your situation and maybe look for other living arrangements THEN Originally Posted by Sunsmile. I lived in Oak Forest for 12 years. I am very familiar with the area around the trailer park. The apartment complexes on th and Cicero are famous for drugs and break-ins. Please reconsider moving in with mom for the time being. You may think that being independent and living with some friends is the mature thing to do, but be realistic for the sake of your baby.
No one will have you and your baby's best interest like mom. Use that time to save, go to school and get your degree. BTW, I graduated from nursing school at So. Good luck to you. Originally Posted by Ophidian Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Additional giveaways are planned. Detailed information about all U. Posting Quick Reply - Please Wait.
User-defined colors Preset color patterns. Most recent value. Based on data. View detailed profiles of: