City of Chicago v. Gomez

2 Citing cases

  1. Lombard Hist. Comm'n v. Vil. of Lombard

    366 Ill. App. 3d 715 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 9 times
    Stating that a self-proclaimed concern in an issue does not vest one with standing, even if manifested by voluntary contributions

    Illinois Wood Energy Partners, L.P. v. County of Cook, 281 Ill. App. 3d 841, 850 (1995). Thus, the plain language of an ordinance is the best indication of the intent of the body that enacted it. City of Chicago v. Gomez, 256 Ill. App. 3d 518, 519 (1993). In this case, that principle appears dispositive.

  2. Kaloo v. Zoning Board of Appeals

    274 Ill. App. 3d 927 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)   Cited 13 times

    The plain language of section 6.4-7 refers only to the prior use in the singular. If an owner could engage in a nonconforming use of property that was equally or less intense than all prior uses, the goal of the Code to eventually eliminate all nonconforming uses would be thwarted. See City of Chicago v. Gomez (1993), 256 Ill. App.3d 518, 519, 628 N.E.2d 243, 244-45 (in construing ordinances, the rules of statutory construction apply and legislative intent must be discerned from the plain language of the ordinance if there is no ambiguity). Finally, plaintiff argues that the ZBA erred in refusing to take testimony by affidavit.