Muscarello v. Winnebago County Board
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25077, 2012 WL 6062515, 702 F.3d 909 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning ordinance that applies broadly to many different properties is a legislative act, not an adjudicative one, and does not violate a landowner's due process rights; such an ordinance will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Facts:
- Patricia A. Muscarello owns three tracts of agricultural land in Winnebago County, Illinois.
- In 2009, the Winnebago County Board amended its zoning ordinance to change wind farms from a 'special use' requiring an elaborate procedural review to a 'permitted use,' which streamlines the approval process.
- Muscarello feared that a wind farm built on an adjacent property would cause various harms, including noise, 'ice throw,' shadow flicker, and interference with wireless communications.
- Muscarello alleged that the prospect of a nearby wind farm, made more likely by the ordinance, had already diminished the value of her properties.
- At the time of the lawsuit, no company had applied for a permit or begun construction of a wind farm in Winnebago County, either on adjacent land or elsewhere.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia A. Muscarello filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Winnebago County Board and other officials.
- The complaint alleged that a 2009 zoning ordinance amendment violated her federal and state constitutional rights, including claims of takings and due process violations.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Muscarello, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 county zoning ordinance that makes it easier for landowners to build wind farms deprive an adjacent landowner of property without due process of law, or constitute a taking, before any wind farm has actually been permitted or constructed?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Posner
No. A county zoning ordinance that streamlines the approval process for a particular land use across the county is a legislative act that does not constitute a taking or a due process violation for an adjacent landowner before any actual harm has occurred. A zoning change affecting many property owners is a legislative act subject only to rational basis review, not an adjudicative process requiring individual hearings. Here, the ordinance is rationally related to the legitimate government interests in promoting clean energy and energy independence. Muscarello's takings claims are not ripe, as a federal taking requires a physical invasion or a regulation rendering property worthless, neither of which has occurred. The broader Illinois takings clause, which covers property being 'damaged,' still requires a 'direct physical disturbance,' which cannot happen until a wind farm is actually built. Her due process claim fails because the potential harm from a change in her neighbors' procedural rights is too remote to be a deprivation of her own property. Her most appropriate remedy, should a neighboring wind farm ever be built and cause actual harm, would be a future nuisance lawsuit.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical distinction between legislative and adjudicative government actions in the context of zoning and land use regulation. By classifying the county-wide ordinance amendment as legislative, the court shields such policy decisions from individualized procedural due process challenges, preserving the authority of local governments to make broad zoning changes through the political process. The decision pushes property owners' potential remedies away from challenging the validity of the zoning law itself and towards future, fact-specific tort claims like nuisance, but only after a tangible harm has materialized. This raises the bar for ripeness in land use cases, requiring a concrete injury rather than speculative fear of future development.
