In any event, the equal protection clause is concerned with acts of invidious discrimination among classes and not with mere acts of unequal enforcement which may be the result of erroneous or even arbitrary administration of facially-neutral ordinances. See, e.g., Wundsam v Gilna, 97 Ill. App.3d 569, 578; 52 Ill Dec 900; 422 N.E.2d 1109 (1981), app den 85 Ill.2d 576 (1981). Hence, while we disagree with the trial court that RVPSO was entirely a regulatory ordinance, we affirm the trial court's order as reaching the right result although, in part, for the wrong reason.
In the meantime, as long as its enforcement methods are not based upon impermissible classifications, the City does not violate equal protection rights, even where it is unequal or arbitrary in the administration of its power. ( Wundsam v. Gilna (1981), 97 Ill. App.3d 569, 422 N.E.2d 1109.) For these reasons, the ruling of the circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed.
dge v. Villari, 350 Mass. 176, 213 N.E.2d 861 (1966); State v. Smiley, 182 Neb. 211, 153 N.W.2d 906 (1967) (the rental of cargo trailers, where the income was minor compared to the service station's other income, was held to be an accessory use customarily incident to the primary service station use); Dettmar v. County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 28 Ohio Misc. 35, 273 N.E.2d 921, 922 (1971); Lawrence v. Zoning Bd. of Lower Gwynedd Township, 19 Pa.Cmwlth. 128, 338 A.2d 779 (1975) (boarding of dogs a continuation of prior nonconforming use involving occasionally boarding of dogs in connection with breeding); Gross v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Philadelphia, 424 Pa. 603, 227 A.2d 824 (1967) (a restaurant was determined to be an "accessory use" of a bowling alley, where the evidence showed a large percentage of bowling alleys customarily had restaurants); City of Warwick v. Campbell, 82 R.I. 300, 107 A.2d 334 (1954) (defining accessory use). As to cases not finding accessory uses see Wundsam v. Gilna, 97 Ill. App.3d 569, 52 Ill.Dec. 900, 907, 422 N.E.2d 1109, 1116 (1981) (storage of recreational vehicle in residential zone not incidental or accessory to residential use); City of Middlesboro v. Billingsley, 371 S.W.2d 23 (Ky. 1963); Building Inspector of Groton v. Vlahos, 10 Mass. App. 890, 409 N.E.2d 795 (1980); City of Lincoln v. Bruce, 221 Neb. 61, 375 N.W.2d 118 (1985); Charlie Brown of Chatham, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment for the Township of Chatham, 202 N.J. Super. 312, 495 A.2d 119 (1985) (sleeping quarters for restaurant employees not customarily incidental); Heagen v. Borough of Allendale, 42 N.J. Super. 472 127 A.2d 181 (1956); Medford Assembly of God v. City of Medford, 72 Or. App. 333, 695 P.2d 1379, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1020, 106 S.Ct. 570, 88 L.Ed.2d 554 (1985); Clackamas County v. Portland City Temple, 13 Or. App. 459, 511 P.2d 412 (1973); IMS American, Ltd. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 94 Pa.Cmwlth. 501, 503 A.2d 1061 (1986) (car wash not invariably an accessory use to a service station so as to justify the extension of the nonconforming us
• 5 We fail to see how constitutional "overbreadth" has any application to the instant case. The United States Supreme Court, in Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973), 413 U.S. 601, 37 L.Ed.2d 830, 93 S.Ct. 2908, suggested that a law is void for overbreadth only if the harmfulness of its chilling effect on first amendment freedoms is greater than the interest furthered by the legislation at issue implying further that even a minimal State interest could justify the law if speech-plus-conduct were involved. (See also Wundsam v. Gilna (1981), 97 Ill. App.3d 569, 574, 422 N.E.2d 1109, appeal denied (1981), 85 Ill.2d 576; Note, Overbreadth Review and the Burger Court, 49 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 532 (1974); Comment, Constitutional Law: A New Test for Overbreadth? 13 Washburn L.J. 524 (1974).) No first amendment freedom is impinged upon by any action taken or required to have been taken in the present case.
In any event, the equal protection clause is concerned with acts of invidious discrimination, not with mere acts of unequal enforcement, or the erroneous and even arbitrary administration of a regulatory power. ( Wundsam v. Gilna (1981), 97 Ill. App.3d 569, 578.) The court did not err therefore in dismissing count II of the complaint.
• 1 The constitutional challenge to a zoning ordinance must be measured against the well-established rules. There is the presumption of validity in favor of existing zoning ordinances, and one who attacks the validity of an ordinance must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the ordinance, as applied to their property, is arbitrary, unreasonable and without a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. ( Wundsam v. Gilna (1981), 97 Ill. App.3d 569, 422 N.E.2d 1109; LaSalle National Bank Trust Co. v. County of Cook (1981), 94 Ill. App.3d 341, 418 N.E.2d 932.) This rule recognizes that zoning is primarily a legislative function, and the court's role is to determine if the exercise of this function invades private constitutional rights without reasonable justification in the public welfare.