Petterson v. City of Naperville
9 Ill. 2d 233, 1956 Ill. LEXIS 324, 137 N.E.2d 371 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality may, as a valid exercise of its statutorily granted police power, impose reasonable regulations requiring the installation of specific improvements, such as curbs and gutters, as a condition precedent to the approval of a subdivision plat for land in unincorporated territory within 1.5 miles of its corporate limits.
Facts:
- Edwin S. and Dorothy Petterson owned a 20-acre tract of land in an unincorporated area of Du Page County, which was contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Naperville.
- The City of Naperville had adopted a "Subdivision Control Ordinance" that applied to all land within the city and within a 1.5-mile radius outside its corporate limits.
- This ordinance required specific improvements for new subdivisions, including streets of a certain width, curbs and gutters, and suitable storm water drainage facilities.
- The Pettersons prepared a plat for a subdivision on their land that complied with Du Page County's less stringent regulations, which allowed for open ditch drainage instead of curbs and gutters.
- The Pettersons submitted their plat to the Naperville plan commission for approval.
- The commission refused to approve the plat unless the Pettersons agreed to several changes, including increasing street width and, crucially, installing curbs, gutters, and a storm water drainage system.
- The Pettersons agreed to widen the streets but refused to install the curbs and gutters, arguing the requirement was unnecessary and imposed a significant financial burden (approximately $19,810 for the city's requirements versus $880 for the county's).
- Due to the Pettersons' refusal to comply with all requirements, the Naperville plan commission officially refused to approve their plat.
Procedural Posture:
- Edwin S. and Dorothy Petterson sued the City of Naperville in the circuit court of Du Page County (the trial court), seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction.
- The cause was referred to a special master, who heard evidence and recommended that relief be granted to the Pettersons.
- Both parties filed exceptions to the master's report.
- The circuit court overruled the city's exceptions, sustained the Pettersons' exceptions, and entered a decree finding the ordinance unconstitutional and unreasonable as applied to the Pettersons' property.
- The trial court enjoined the city from enforcing the ordinance and directed it to approve the Pettersons' plat.
- The City of Naperville, as defendant-appellant, appealed the judgment directly 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:
Does a municipal ordinance that requires a developer to install specific improvements, such as curbs and gutters, in a subdivision located in unincorporated territory within 1.5 miles of the city's corporate limits, as a condition for plat approval, exceed the city's statutory authority or violate the constitution as an unreasonable exercise of police power?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Davis
No. A municipal ordinance requiring specific improvements for subdivisions in contiguous unincorporated territory does not exceed statutory authority and is a constitutional exercise of police power. The Illinois legislature, through the City Plan Commission Act and related statutes, clearly intended to grant municipalities with an official plan exclusive control over the subdivision of lands within 1.5 miles of their corporate limits to ensure orderly development. The statutory power to set 'reasonable requirements in reference to streets' is not limited to location and width, but broadly includes improvements like curbs, gutters, and drainage systems that are directly related to public health and safety. The ordinance is a valid exercise of police power because the requirements bear a substantial relation to the public welfare by ensuring proper drainage, preventing health hazards from saturated ground near septic systems, and reducing long-term road maintenance costs. The fact that compliance imposes a greater financial burden on the developer is insufficient to render the ordinance arbitrary, unreasonable, or confiscatory, as the challengers failed to provide clear and affirmative evidence to that effect.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction over subdivision planning, confirming that its police power can extend beyond its corporate limits when explicitly authorized by statute. It establishes that cities can impose significant and costly infrastructure requirements on developers in unincorporated fringe areas to ensure orderly growth and prevent the creation of substandard developments that could later become a municipal burden upon annexation. The case broadly interprets the statutory phrase 'reasonable requirements with reference to streets,' setting a precedent that this language encompasses not just the layout but also the physical construction and quality of infrastructure, including drainage systems.
Unlock the full brief for Petterson v. City of Naperville