Lexplug logoLexplug

Sullivan v. Village of Glenview

Appellate Court of Illinois
2020 IL App (1st) 200142 (2020)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A municipal ordinance that conditions a potential zoning change upon a future application by the landowner, which must then be accepted by the municipal board through the standard legislative process, is not a final zoning "decision" that triggers the statute of limitations for challenging such actions.


Facts:

  • In early 1988, the Village of Northbrook and the Village of Glenview were both attempting to annex a parcel of land known as the "Hart property."
  • The owners of the Hart property petitioned the Village of Glenview for annexation.
  • On March 1, 1988, Glenview passed an ordinance annexing the Hart property.
  • On March 15, 1988, Glenview adopted Ordinance 2856, which stated the Hart property would be rezoned from R-1 Residential to B-1 General Business.
  • Ordinance 2856 specified that the rezoning would only "take effect upon notice and application given by the title holder(s) of the subject property to the Board of Trustees," and that application must be "accepted by the Board of Trustees."
  • For 31 years, from 1988 to 2019, the Hart property remained classified as R-1 Residential on Glenview's official zoning map, and no development application was filed.
  • On May 24, 2019, a developer, GW Property Group, filed an application with Glenview to rezone and commercially develop the Hart property pursuant to the 1988 ordinance.
  • Carol Sullivan and other homeowners residing near the Hart property opposed the development.

Procedural Posture:

  • Carol Sullivan and other homeowners filed a two-count complaint for declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court of Cook County against the Village of Glenview.
  • The Village of Glenview filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the lawsuit was barred by the 90-day statute of limitations in the Illinois Municipal Code.
  • The trial court granted the Village's motion and dismissed the homeowners' complaint as untimely.
  • The homeowners (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District.

Locked

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 purports to rezone a property, but conditions the rezoning to "take effect upon notice and application given by the title holder(s) ... to the Board of Trustees" which must then be accepted, constitute a final zoning "decision" subject to the 90-day statute of limitations under the Illinois Municipal Code?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Ellis

No. The 1988 ordinance was not a final zoning "decision" because it did not actually change the property's zoning classification but instead required the landowner to initiate and complete the entire formal rezoning process at a future date. The court reasoned that the plain meaning of "decision" implies a final determination or conclusion. Ordinance 2856 did not reach a conclusion; its language requiring an "application for rezoning" that must be "accepted by the Board of Trustees" after "notice" mirrored the standard, start-to-finish legislative zoning process outlined in the Glenview Municipal Code. If the rezoning were already approved in 1988, there would be nothing to "apply" for, and a legislative body like the Board of Trustees acts by passing new ordinances, not by ministerially accepting documents. The ordinance effectively "punted" the rezoning question, leaving the landowner in the same position as any other property owner seeking a zoning change. Because it was not a final "decision," the 90-day statute of limitations was never triggered.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the definition of a final, appealable zoning "decision" for the purpose of statutes of limitations in Illinois. It establishes that a municipality cannot create a "springing" rezoning that lies dormant for decades and bypasses future public process and review. The ruling protects the due process rights of neighboring property owners to receive notice and participate in hearings concerning an actual, present rezoning application, rather than being foreclosed by a decades-old ordinance that merely contemplated a future change. It sets a precedent that for a zoning action to be considered a final "decision," it must effect a present or definitively-conditioned change, not simply reserve a question for future legislative action.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Sullivan v. Village of Glenview (2020) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Sullivan v. Village of Glenview