Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-~, <br />\ <br /> <br />-~\ <br />( <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />July 10, 20081 Volume 21 No. 13 <br /> <br />See also: Gold Diggers, LLC v. Town of Berlin, Conn., 469E Supp. <br />2d 43 (D: Conn. 2007). <br /> <br />Case Note: Finding the trial court's memorandum of decision fully <br />addressed the arguments raised in the appeal, the Supreme Court <br />of Connecticut adopted the trial court's "concise and well rea- <br />soned decision." Thus, it is that decision, which is detailed here. <br /> <br />Constitutionality-City says sign violates zoning <br />ordinance <br /> <br />Property owner argues sign is legal, nonconforming use; <br />alleges city is violating its substantive due process rights <br /> <br />Citation: General Auto Service Station v. City of Chicago, 526 EJd <br />991 (7th Gir. 2008) <br /> <br />The 7th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana and <br />Wisconsin. <br /> <br />ILLINOIS (05/16/08) - Bernard Reerey purchased a building in <br />the city in 1961. Reereylater assigned his beneficial interest in the <br />p,roperty to General Auto Service Station LLC (GASS). GASS even- <br />tually leased the advertising space on the building to a variety of <br />entities, including Whiteco Industries, Inc. (collectively, the lessees <br />are referred to as "Whiteco"). <br />In 1962, Reerey had an advertising sign painted on the south wall <br />of the building. The sign on the south wall of the building was within <br />75 feet of a district zoned for residential use. <br />Sometim~ between 1962 and 1969, Reerey illuminated the sign. <br />Sometime between 1975 and 1979, Reerey allowed Whiteco to en- <br />large the sign. In 1979, the sign was enlarged to its maximum dimen- <br />sions of 26 feet by 59 feet. These changes triggered permit require- <br />ments under the. city's electrical code and zoning ordinance. Section <br />86.1-4 of the city's electrical code required a permit for illuminated <br />signs. Section 8.9(5) of the city's zoning ordinance prohibited adver- <br />tising signs "within 75 feet of any [improved] property in a Residence <br />District." Reereydid not obtain a permit. <br />In 1990, the city's zoning ordinance was changed to add ~ 8.9(7), <br />which prohibited: (1) advertising signs having a face of more than <br />100 squarefeet within 250 feet of a Residence District; and (2) adver- <br />tising signs of any size within 75 feet of a Residence District. Section <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />41 <br />