Brodner v. City of Elgin
96 Ill. App. 3d 224, 420 N.E.2d 1176, 51 Ill. Dec. 618 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance requiring property owner consent for rezoning applications constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority when applied to the municipality itself as the initiator of the rezoning. Furthermore, a party challenging a zoning ordinance must first exhaust available administrative remedies unless doing so would be patently useless.
Facts:
- The City of Elgin initiated applications to rezone approximately 200 parcels of real estate to a new 'O' Limited Office classification.
- A City of Elgin ordinance stated that 'The written consent of the owner... shall accompany all applications' for zoning amendments.
- The City of Elgin did not obtain the written consent of the property owners when it filed the applications to rezone their property.
- Plaintiffs, who own seven of the affected parcels, appeared at public land use committee hearings to protest the rezoning.
- The city's land use committee heard the plaintiffs' protests and recommended that the city deny its own applications for the plaintiffs' properties.
- Despite the committee's recommendation, the Elgin City Council voted to approve the rezoning applications for all the properties, including those belonging to the plaintiffs.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint for declaratory judgment against the City of Elgin in the Circuit Court of Kane County, a trial court.
- The City of Elgin filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
- The trial court granted the motion, dismissing Count I with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court also dismissed Counts II and III without prejudice, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's dismissals to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city ordinance requiring the written consent of the property owner for all rezoning applications represent an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power when the city itself initiates the rezoning?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Lindberg
Yes, a city ordinance requiring owner consent for all rezoning applications constitutes an unlawful delegation of the city's legislative power if enforced against the city itself. The adoption of a rezoning ordinance is a legislative act and an exercise of the police power, which cannot be delegated to private individuals. To allow a property owner's consent to be a prerequisite would confer upon that owner the absolute discretion to frustrate a comprehensive zoning plan pursued for the common good. The court interpreted the consent requirement as intended only for applications made by private persons, not the city council itself. The court also affirmed that the plaintiffs were required to exhaust their local administrative remedies before challenging the substance of the rezoning in court, as it was not 'patently useless' for them to seek relief from local bodies.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental principle that a government's legislative power, such as zoning authority, cannot be delegated to private citizens. It establishes that procedural requirements in a zoning code, like owner consent, will not be interpreted in a way that allows a private individual to veto a public legislative act. The ruling carves out an implicit exception for city-initiated actions, strengthening municipal power in comprehensive land use planning. It also underscores the importance of the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, requiring plaintiffs to pursue administrative solutions before resorting to litigation unless they can prove such an effort would be entirely futile.
