Find Legal Information

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Key Outdoor, Inc., sought judicial review ofthe decision by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)to deny plaintiff's request for a commercial driveway permit. The circuit court denied plaintiff's motion to remand the matterfor a hearing before IDOT and affirmed the decision of theagency. Plaintiff appeals, arguing the circuit court erred indenying plaintiff's motion to remand the case to IDOT for ahearing and erred in affirming the decision of IDOT to denyplaintiff's request for a permit. We affirm.

In June 1999, plaintiff informed IDOT by letter it wasin the process of selling a parcel of land in Decatur, Illinois,to a car wash business for $175,000. Plaintiff informed IDOT thesale was contingent, however, upon plaintiff obtaining a commercial driveway permit to 44th Street from IDOT. IDOT worked onthe problem throughout the summer of 1999.

The parcel of land is approximately 1.2 acres and islocated at the southwest intersection of 44th Street and U.S.Route 36, as shown on the appended drawing. The two roads forman obtuse angle at the intersection, and the parcel is an irregular, five-sided lot. The parcel's northern edge abuts Route 36and runs northwest from 44th Street approximately 100 feet, thentakes a less severe angle for another 200 feet. Its eastern edgeabuts 44th Street. No point of this edge lies farther than 200feet from Route 36. The western edge is 215 feet long and abutsPhyllis Drive, a residential dead-end street not intersectingwith the highway. Plaintiff points out the originally plattedright-of-way is to Phyllis Drive. The southern edge abutsanother parcel or parcels of land.

IDOT maintains and controls Route 36 and controlsaccess drives to roadways intersecting Route 36 where suchdriveways are within 200 feet of the edge of Route 36 pavement. IDOT previously acquired the right to prohibit access from theplaintiff's property directly onto Route 36. The property isvacant except for an outdoor advertising sign owned and maintained by plaintiff. The property is zoned for commercial use.

On September 10, 1999, IDOT informed plaintiff byletter it denied plaintiff's request for a commercial drivewaypermit, and all information concerning the matter was forwardedto IDOT's Springfield office for review. On September 16, 1999,plaintiff by letter requested a written explanation of the basisfor the denial and why he could not receive a variance based onIDOT's Handbook for the Policy on Permits for Access Driveways toState Highways, which provides as follows:

"G. Policy Variances

Requests for variances from the provisions ofthis policy may be considered where unusualconditions are present. Such requests willbe reviewed on an individual basis and may beallowed only where extreme, unique, unusualcircumstances would make compliance impractical or unreasonable. Exceptions will not beallowed if they would jeopardize public safety or the traffic carrying capacity of theState highway."

On October 1, 1999, IDOT responded to plaintiff in partas follows:

"The proposed access location is not atleast 200 feet away from the through edge ofpavement on U.S. Route 36 to the near radiuspoint of your proposed entrance. The distance is specified in [IDOT's] publishedaccess rules[] (92 Illinois Administrat[ive]Code [