Goffinet v. County of Christian
357 N.E.2d 442, 2 Ill. Dec. 275, 65 Ill. 2d 40 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conditional rezoning is not per se invalid in Illinois; its validity depends on whether the ordinance promotes the public health, safety, and welfare, as determined by an application of the factors established in La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook.
Facts:
- Illinois NapGas Co. (NapGas), a gas company subsidiary, sought to construct and operate a synthetic gas production plant in Christian County.
- NapGas's parent company acquired an option to purchase a 236-acre parcel of farmland from owner Harry Griswold.
- The parcel was zoned AG-1 (agricultural) under a county comprehensive plan that also recognized the need for industrial development to provide jobs and stimulate economic growth.
- The location was uniquely suitable for the proposed plant because a feedstock supply pipeline intersected a gas distribution line near the site.
- At the time, Christian County was experiencing a natural gas shortage that affected residents, farms, and businesses.
- The proposed plant would convert liquid hydrocarbon feedstock into methane gas, involving large physical structures and significant water usage from the nearby Sangamon River.
- NapGas and Griswold petitioned Christian County to rezone the parcel from AG-1 to I-2 (heavy industrial) to allow for the plant's construction.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry Griswold and Illinois NapGas Co. petitioned the Zoning Board of Appeals of Christian County for rezoning.
- The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended that the petition be denied.
- The Christian County Board rejected the recommendation and enacted an ordinance conditionally rezoning the property.
- Adjacent landowners (Goffinet et al., plaintiffs) filed a suit in the circuit court of Christian County against the County of Christian, seeking to have the ordinance declared void.
- The circuit court (trial court) entered a judgment declaring the ordinance valid and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.
- The plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, which affirmed the circuit court's judgment.
- The plaintiffs-appellants were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
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 zoning ordinance that rezones a single parcel of land from agricultural to heavy industrial, but limits its use to a specific purpose and includes a reverter clause, a valid exercise of zoning power, or is it impermissible conditional or spot zoning?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kluczynski
Yes. A zoning ordinance that includes conditions or restrictions is not automatically invalid; its validity is determined by whether it is reasonably related to the public health, safety, and welfare. The court found that prior cases, such as the Treadway decisions, did not establish a per se rule against conditional rezoning. Instead, the court applied the six-factor test from La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook and found the ordinance valid. The court reasoned that the public gain was substantial, as the facility would address a critical gas shortage and promote economic development consistent with the county's comprehensive plan. Furthermore, the appellants failed to show any evidence that their property values would be diminished or that they would suffer any hardship. The court concluded that the conditional rezoning, which included a reverter clause, was functionally indistinguishable from a special use permit and was a valid exercise of the county's legislative discretion. The court also rejected the spot zoning claim, holding that the rezoning was not void ipso facto because it was in harmony with the county's comprehensive plan to attract industry.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Illinois law by rejecting the long-held assumption that conditional rezoning is per se invalid. It establishes that conditional rezoning can be a legitimate and flexible land-use tool for municipalities, provided the conditions are aimed at protecting public welfare and are not arbitrary. By equating a conditional rezoning with a reverter clause to a special use permit, the court blurred the distinction between these two zoning mechanisms, giving local governments greater latitude in negotiating development agreements for unique projects. The case reinforces the judiciary's deferential stance toward legislative zoning decisions, placing a high burden on challengers to prove that an ordinance is unrelated to public health, safety, and welfare.
Unlock the full brief for Goffinet v. County of Christian