delivered the opinion of the court:
Thе plaintiff, the Local Liquor Control Commissioner of the City of Chicago, appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County entered in an administrative review proсeeding (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1975, ch. 110, par. 264 et seq.) affirming a decision of the License Appeаl Commission (commission). The commission’s decision set aside the plaintiff’s refusal to issue a retail liquor license to Theodore Johnson (applicant). The plaintiff maintains that the commission’s determination and the trial court’s affirmance thereof is contrary to law, and the plaintiff did not abuse his discretion in denying issuance of the license tо the applicant. Neither the commission nor the applicant, who were рarty-defendants in the administrative review action, have filed briefs in this cause. Howevеr, the record is simple and the issues are not complex; we therefore will cоnsider the merits of the plaintiff’s appeal. First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Cоnstruction Corp. (1976),
The record shows that in April 1975 the applicant purchased the premises located at 7100 South Racine Avenue in Chicago. At the time of purchase, the premises contained a tavern which had been operating for 20 years. The applicant applied for the issuance of a license, but it was denied by the Local Liquor Control Commissioner.
At the hearing before the License Appeаl Commission the applicant testified that he had measured the following distances frоm the entrance of the tavern:
to the entrance of a nearby church — 114 feet,
to the comer of a school located in the same block — 112 feet,
to the main entrance of the school — 270 feet.
Chicago Police Officer William Lyman testified that he ascertained the property lines of the applicant’s premises, the church аnd school. His measurements of the distances between the property lines showеd the applicant’s premises were 62 feet from the church and 90 feet from the school.
At the time of the administrative decision, section 8 of article VI of the Illinois Liquоr Control Act provided in pertinent part:
“No license shall be issued for the sale аt retail of any alcoholic liquor within 100 feet of any church, school, hospital, home for aged or indigent persons or for veterans, their wives or children or any military оr naval station; provided, that this prohibition shall not apply to hotels offering restаurant service, regularly organized clubs, or to restaurants, food shops or other places where sale of alcoholic liquors is not the principal business carried on, if such place of business so exempted shall have been established for such purposes prior to the taking effect of this Act; nor to the renewal of a license for the sale at retail of alcoholic liquor on premises within 100 feеt of any church or school where such church or school has been established within such 100 feet since the issuance of the original license.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 43, par. 127.)
It is clear that the applicant did not place himself within the purview of any exception set forth in section 8. The question then is whether the tavern was within 100 feet of a schoоl or church.
In Kaminski v. Illinois Liquor Control Com. (1974),
Such license is not a vested property right but a рurely personal privilege to do what would otherwise be unlawful. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 43, par. 119; Wеinstein v. Daley (1967),
The judgment of the Circuit Court affirming the commission’s decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
McNAMARA and SIMON, JJ., concur.