Village of Barrington Hills v. Village of Hoffman Estates
81 Ill. 2d 392, 43 Ill. Dec. 37, 410 N.E.2d 37 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality has standing to challenge the zoning ordinance of an adjacent municipality upon a clear demonstration that the ordinance will cause a substantial, direct, and adverse effect upon the challenging municipality in its corporate capacity.
Facts:
- A 212-acre property, located in an unincorporated area of Cook County, was zoned for single-family residences (R-1).
- The property is adjacent or in close proximity to the corporate limits of the Village of Barrington Hills and the Village of South Barrington.
- The Nederlander Group planned to develop the property into a large open-air music theater to accommodate up to 20,000 people and 7,500 automobiles.
- The Village of Hoffman Estates annexed the property.
- Hoffman Estates then passed ordinances rezoning the property to a central business district (B-2) and farming district (F) to permit the theater's construction.
- The rezoned property is a substantial distance from Hoffman Estates' residential areas but in close proximity to residential areas in Barrington Hills and South Barrington.
- Barrington Hills and South Barrington alleged the theater would cause significant traffic congestion on their roads, require them to hire additional police at substantial annual cost, generate litter, and increase air and noise pollution within their borders.
Procedural Posture:
- The Village of Barrington Hills and the Village of South Barrington (plaintiffs) filed a complaint against the Village of Hoffman Estates and the property developers (defendants) in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
- The circuit court (trial court) granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- The plaintiffs 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:
Does a municipality have standing to challenge a neighboring municipality's zoning ordinance when the ordinance is predicted to cause substantial adverse effects, such as increased municipal expenditures and traffic congestion, even if the challenging municipality is not required to provide services directly to the rezoned property?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Underwood
Yes. A municipality has standing to challenge a neighboring municipality's zoning ordinance if it can demonstrate a real interest in the controversy by showing it would be substantially, directly, and adversely affected in its corporate capacity. The court reasoned that the appellate court's interpretation of precedent in City of Hickory Hills v. Bridgeview was unduly narrow. Standing is not limited to situations where the objecting municipality must provide direct services (like water or sewer) to the subject property. Here, the plaintiffs' allegations of increased municipal expenditures for police and road cleanup, loss of property value and tax revenue, and degradation of air and sound quality constitute direct, substantial, and adverse effects. These alleged injuries demonstrate a real interest in the controversy, conferring standing to sue.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and expands the doctrine of municipal standing in Illinois zoning disputes. It moves away from a rigid test requiring a direct service obligation and establishes a more flexible standard based on whether a municipality suffers a direct, substantial injury in its corporate capacity. This empowers municipalities to protect their financial resources, public services, and residents' quality of life from the negative spillover effects of development in neighboring jurisdictions. The ruling provides a legal avenue for communities to challenge adjacent zoning changes that threaten to strain their budgets or undermine their comprehensive plans, even without a direct physical or service connection to the property.
