Forestview Homeowners Ass'n v. County of Cook
309 N.E.2d 763, 18 Ill. App. 3d 230, 1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 2802 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A county's amendatory zoning ordinance is arbitrary and capricious if it dramatically increases density inconsistent with surrounding uses, is not justified by public welfare, and harms public infrastructure. The presumption of validity that normally attaches to a zoning ordinance is weakened when the legislative body fails to engage in comprehensive planning.
Facts:
- In 1968, defendant Thomas Origer purchased a 96-acre tract of vacant land in an unincorporated area of Cook County.
- The tract and the surrounding area were zoned R-3 for single-family residences, and the adjacent properties consisted of single-family homes, vacant land, and a forest preserve.
- Origer applied to have the tract rezoned to R-6 general residence to build a 2,003-unit multi-family housing development, which would increase the local population by an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 people.
- The proposed development was projected to add approximately 20,000 daily vehicular trips to existing two-lane roads.
- Local elementary schools that would serve the new development were already operating at capacity, and the school district had nearly exhausted its bonding power for new construction.
- Nearby homeowners had purchased their single-family homes in reliance on the existing R-3 zoning.
- The Village of Northbrook, located about a mile and a half from the tract, formally objected to the rezoning proposal.
Procedural Posture:
- Forestview Homeowners Association and other plaintiffs sued the County of Cook and developer Thomas Origer in an Illinois trial court.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaration that an amendatory zoning ordinance and special use permit were void, and requested an injunction.
- The Village of Northbrook was granted leave by the court to intervene as a plaintiff.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the defendants and entered a decree dismissing the plaintiffs' complaints.
- The original plaintiffs and the intervenor Village of Northbrook, as appellants, appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois.
- The defendants, as appellees, filed cross-appeals challenging the trial court's decision to permit the Village of Northbrook to intervene.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a county's amendatory zoning ordinance, which rezones a 96-acre tract from a single-family to a high-density multi-family residence district, an arbitrary and capricious exercise of power when it is inconsistent with surrounding established uses, will negatively impact public infrastructure, and is enacted by a county that lacks a comprehensive zoning plan?
Opinions:
Majority - Leighton, J.
Yes. A county's amendatory zoning ordinance is an arbitrary and capricious exercise of power when it is inconsistent with established surrounding uses and is not justified by public welfare. First, the court found the ordinance procedurally invalid because the County Board failed to act on the Zoning Board's recommendation within the 60-day period mandated by its own ordinance, rendering the subsequent approval, made over a year later, void. Second, the court held that the presumption of validity attaching to the ordinance was weakened by Cook County's admitted failure to have a comprehensive plan for development. Finally, applying the established factors for zoning validity, the court found the rezoning to be substantively invalid because: (1) it was inconsistent with the uniform and established single-family residential character of the surrounding area; (2) it would cause depreciation of nearby property values while tripling the value of the developer's land; and (3) it did not promote the public welfare, as it would severely increase traffic congestion, overcrowd schools, and create drainage problems, without a corresponding public benefit. The court concluded the rezoning was not for the public good but rather for the private gain of the developer.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that zoning changes must be substantially related to the public welfare and not merely serve the economic interests of a property owner. It establishes that the absence of a comprehensive plan can significantly weaken the presumption of validity afforded to a government's zoning decisions, subjecting them to stricter judicial scrutiny. The case serves as a key precedent for challenging spot zoning or drastic rezoning that is out of character with the surrounding community and places undue burdens on public services like schools and transportation infrastructure.
