Martin v. City of Greenville
12 Ill. Dec. 46, 54 Ill. App. 3d 42, 369 N.E.2d 543 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality cannot be bound by a settlement agreement that effectively amends its zoning ordinance if the agreement was reached without adhering to the statutory and ordinance-mandated procedural requirements for such amendments, such as public notice and hearings.
Facts:
- Everett and Larry Martin owned a tract of land within the City of Greenville.
- The Martins' property was located in a district zoned R-1, which permitted only single-family residences.
- The Martins sought to build multi-family apartment buildings on the property and petitioned the city to rezone the land to R-3 multi-family.
- A public hearing was held before the city planning commission, which subsequently recommended that the rezoning petition be denied.
- The Greenville City Council adopted the planning commission's recommendation and voted unanimously to deny the Martins' petition.
- During subsequent litigation, a settlement was discussed whereby the property would remain zoned R-1, but the Martins would be permitted to construct up to 12 apartment units under specified conditions.
- This compromise was reportedly agreed to by three of the five city council members, including the mayor, on an informal basis.
Procedural Posture:
- Everett and Larry Martin filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Bond County against the City of Greenville.
- During trial, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement agreement.
- The City of Greenville subsequently notified the Martins that its council had determined it lacked legal authority to enter into the agreement.
- The Martins filed a motion in the Circuit Court to enforce the settlement agreement.
- The Circuit Court granted the Martins' motion and entered an order enforcing the settlement.
- The City of Greenville, as defendant-appellant, appealed the Circuit Court's enforcement order to the appellate court.
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 settlement agreement between a municipality and a private party that alters zoning regulations for a specific property bind the municipality if it was not adopted through the statutorily required legislative process for amending a zoning ordinance?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Karns
No. A settlement agreement that effectively amends a zoning ordinance is not binding on a municipality if it circumvents the legally required procedures for such amendments. The court reasoned that municipalities only possess powers granted by constitution and statute, and they cannot be bound by a contract that fails to comply with the prescribed conditions for exercising those powers. Amending a zoning ordinance is a legislative function that statutorily requires public notice and a public hearing before the planning commission, followed by a recommendation to the city council. The settlement agreement in this case was an attempt to amend the ordinance's requirements for the Martins' property without following this mandatory public process. Such an agreement is contrary to public policy, exceeds the municipality's authority, and is therefore null and void.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that a municipality's legislative powers, particularly in zoning, cannot be contracted away or exercised through informal agreements. It establishes that litigation settlement is not a valid substitute for the statutorily mandated public process of amending a zoning ordinance. The ruling protects the integrity of the legislative process and ensures that decisions affecting community development and land use are made transparently with public input, rather than through private deals. Future litigants will be unable to use the threat of a lawsuit to compel a city to agree to a zoning variance or change that it could not or would not approve through proper legislative channels.
Unlock the full brief for Martin v. City of Greenville