City of Elgin v. County of Cook
| Decision Date | 02 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 76775,76776,s. 76775 |
| Citation | 169 Ill.2d 53,660 N.E.2d 875,214 Ill.Dec. 168 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 214 Ill.Dec. 168 The CITY OF ELGIN et al., Appellees, v. The COUNTY OF COOK et al., Appellants. The VILLAGE OF BARTLETT et al., Appellees, v. The SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY, Appellant. |
Jack O'Malley, State's Attorney, Chicago (Karen A. Covy, Patricia M. Moser, William P. Motto and Jayman A. Avery III, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant County of Cook.
David R. Akemann, State's Attorney, Patricia Johnson Lord, Assistant State's Attorney, and Timothy P. Dwyer, all of St. Charles, for appellee County of Kane.
Myron M. Cherry and Peter Flynn, Cherry & Flynn and Lee J. Schwartz, Chicago, Bryan E. Mraz and Edward Smith Mraz, of Bryan E. Mraz & Associates, Roselle, and Erwin W. Jentsch and Kenneth F. Miles, both of Elgin, for appellees Village of Bartlett et al.
In 1988, elected officials from 28 of the municipalities in the Northwest Municipal Conference, representing approximately 950,000 Cook County residents, joined together to create the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC). SWANCC is a municipal joint-action agency established by the Cook County board of commissioners (the Cook County board) pursuant to section 3.2 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (5 ILCS 220/3.2 (West 1992); see also Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, § 10). SWANCC was established to continue the process that had begun in 1982 by the Northwest Municipal Conference, a predecessor municipal joint-action body, to develop a comprehensive plan for the regional management of solid waste generated by the member communities.
Part of the comprehensive plan that SWANCC developed addresses recycling, composting and waste-reduction efforts designed to reduce the amount of solid waste its member communities must send to landfills by 40% to 45% by 1996. Another part of the plan is the construction of a landfill for municipal solid waste called a "balefill" because it is designed to dispose of solid waste that has been compacted into large bales. It is intended that the proposed balefill facility will be located within the 410 Cook County acres owned by SWANCC and not within the 123 contiguous Kane County acres also owned by SWANCC. The proposed site was previously zoned for industrial use and contains a now-defunct strip mine.
Because the proposed site is located in unincorporated Cook County, SWANCC applied to the Cook County zoning board of appeals in January 1987 for a special planned use development permit to construct the balefill on the site. Public hearings on the application began on March 26, 1987, and concluded on August 12, 1987. The Village of Bartlett, the Village of South Elgin and the City of Elgin objected, thus requiring that the permit be approved by greater than three-quarters of the Cook County board. The zoning board of appeals unanimously recommended approval of the application, and on November 16, 1987, the Cook County board granted preliminary approval for the special use permit, though it conditioned final approval on the issuance of a development permit by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) within two years.
On November 22, 1988, SWANCC then filed an application for a development permit with the Agency, wherein it had the burden of demonstrating that the balefill would comply with the environmental standards set forth in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (the Act) and its various implementing regulations. The Agency held public hearings on the original balefill application on February 1989, and denied it on May 18, 1989. SWANCC then submitted a revised application which responded to the Agency's criticisms. The Agency held more public hearings at which certain of the plaintiff municipalities testified regarding their concerns about the effect of the balefill on the environment. On November 16, 1989, the Agency issued a permit to develop the site, though with the condition that SWANCC also receive the approval of any necessary Federal agencies.
With the condition of the issuance of the Agency permit satisfied, the Cook County board, on January 16, 1990, enacted an ordinance granting final zoning approval for the balefill. Because the plan for the balefill specifies that standing water in some of the Subsequent to the Cook County board's issuance of the final planned unit development permit for development of the balefill, separate complaints contesting the balefill were filed in both the Cook County and the Kane County circuit courts. SWANCC prevailed in the Cook County suit and lost in the Kane County suit. Appeals were sought from both the Cook County and the Kane County trial court rulings and, upon SWANCC's motion, this court consolidated these appeals in the First District of the appellate court. Upon receiving the appellate decision (257 Ill.App.3d 186, 195 Ill.Dec. 778, 629 N.E.2d 86), SWANCC petitioned this court for leave to appeal and various of the plaintiffs cross-appealed. This court granted leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 315 (145 Ill.2d R. 315). For purposes of clarity, this opinion disposes of the Cook County and the Kane County lawsuits in separate sections.
[214 Ill.Dec. 172] mined areas be filled, SWANCC must also receive approval from the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The Army Corps of Engineers has twice refused to issue the required permit and an appeal of this decision was filed with the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on December 16, 1994 (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Illinois v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (N.D.Ill.), No. 94-C-7489), and is still pending.
On November 17, 1989, one day after the Agency issued the final Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit for the balefill, the City of Elgin, the Village of Bartlett, the Village of South Elgin, the Village of Wayne, and Hanover Township (the plaintiff municipalities) filed a five-count complaint against SWANCC and the Cook County board, seeking to overturn the county board's approval of a special use permit for the balefill. 1 The gravamen of the plaintiff municipalities' complaint is that the balefill ordinance was arbitrary and capricious; the procedures employed in approving the balefill ordinance were deficient; the balefill will cause environmental damage; and the balefill will economically injure the plaintiff municipalities in their corporate capacity.
SWANCC moved to strike the allegations of environmental harm on the ground that they constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Agency's permitting decision. The circuit court of Cook County granted the motion and then, sua sponte, dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice and subsequently refused to allow the filing of an amended complaint. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of counts I, II, IV, V, VI and VII of the plaintiff municipalities' complaint, as well as the trial court's refusal to grant leave to file an amended complaint. (257 Ill.App.3d 186, 195 Ill.Dec. 778, 629 N.E.2d 86.) However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of count III, which it ruled stated a prima facie case of direct and adverse impact to the corporate capacity of the plaintiff municipalities such that they had standing to challenge the balefill zoning ordinance. 257 Ill.App.3d at 194-97, 195 Ill.Dec. 778, 629 N.E.2d 86.
SWANCC appealed the appellate court's count III holding and the plaintiff municipalities sought cross-relief, seeking the reversal of the amended complaint ruling. For the reasons expressed below, we reverse the appellate court's count III holding and affirm its holding that the trial court properly denied leave to file an amended complaint.
The Pollution Control Board and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency are charged by the General Assembly with implementing the Environmental Protection Significantly, plaintiffs are statutorily precluded from legally challenging the Agency's decision to grant a development permit for a pollution control facility. 2 An Agency decision granting a permit cannot be appealed to the Pollution Control Board, which is only authorized to hear appeals where the Agency denies a permit or grants only a conditional permit. (415 ILCS 5/40(a)(1) (West 1992).) Further, the Act only authorizes judicial review of Pollution Control Board permitting decisions, and not Agency permitting decisions. (415 ILCS 5/41(a) (West 1992).) Consequently, judicial review of Agency decisions granting development permits for solid waste disposal sites is precluded and the instant plaintiffs cannot challenge the Agency's decision to grant the balefill development permit.
[214 Ill.Dec. 173] Act. The Pollution Control Board establishes environmental standards and regulations and also adjudicates enforcement matters. (415 ILCS 5/5 (West 1992).) The Agency considers and applies these regulations in a variety of contexts, including its decisions to issue development and operation permits for pollution [169 Ill.2d 61] control facilities such as the instant balefill. (415 ILCS 5/4 (West 1992).) Only after an applicant such as SWANCC proves that a facility will not cause a violation of the Act or of the regulations can the Agency issue a development permit. (415 ILCS 5/39 (West 1992); 35 Ill.Adm.Code § 807.101 et seq. (1994).) To assist it in its evaluations, the Agency employs a staff of experts from various...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brandon v. Bonell, 2-05-0802.
...... would steal the grease for bartering or use it to cook in their cells and that there was a danger the hot grease ...220 v. Special Education District of Lake County, 245 Ill.App.3d 242, 247, 186 Ill.Dec. 96, 615 N.E.2d 1153 ...See City of Elgin v. County of Cook, 169 Ill.2d 53, 71-72, 214 ......
-
Helping Others Maintain Envtl. Standards v. Bos
...injury as is traditionally [346 Ill.Dec. 804 , 941 N.E.2d 362] required in environmental nuisance cases. City of Elgin v. County of Cook, 169 Ill.2d 53, 85, 214 Ill.Dec. 168, 660 N.E.2d 875 (1995); see also Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill.2d 211, 228, 242 Ill.Dec. 79, 720 N.E.2d 1034 (19......
-
Pace v. REGIONAL TRANSP. AUTHORITY, 2-02-0651.
......The Act created the RTA, which voters in Cook, Du Page, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties approved ... of 13 directors, and the regions of the six-county area are represented as follows: four directors must reside ...v. City of Chicago, 335 Ill. App.3d 489, 492, 269 Ill.Dec. 624, ... City of Elgin v. County of Cook, 169 Ill.2d 53, 63, 214 Ill.Dec. 168, ......
-
Lucey v. Law Offices of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered
...... in dismissing the complaint with prejudice (see City of Elgin v. County of Cook, 169 Ill.2d 53, 71-72, 214 ......
-
State Citizen Suits, Standing, and the Underutilization of State Environmental Law
...132. Citizens Opposing Pollution v. ExxonMobil Coal U.S.A., 962 N.E.2d 956, 958, 967 (Ill. 2012); City of Elgin v. County of Cook, 660 N.E.2d 875 (Ill. 1995). 133. See English & Carroll, supra note 20, at 19 (“[W]hile Article 1 appears to be completely self-executing, i.e. enforceable by th......
-
Conclusion: Should There Be a Constitutional Right to a Clean/Healthy Environment?
...legislature—as do the constitutions of Louisiana, 136 Michigan, 137 , 124. Ill. Const. art. XI, §2. 125. City of Elgin v. County of Cook, 660 N.E.2d 875, 891 (Ill. 1995) (finding no cause of action for plaintiffs; lawsuit regarding environmental damage at a balefill site and destruction of ......
-
Table of Cases
...513, 29 P.3d 1011 (Mont. 2001). Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , 558 U.S. 310 (2010). City of Elgin v. Cook County , 660 N.E.2d 875 (Ill. 1995). Commonwealth v. National Gettysburg Tower , Inc. , 454 Pa. 193, 311 A.2d 588 (1973). Concerned Residents of Manila Bay et al. v. M......
-
Other States Begin to Act While the United States Constitution Remains Silent
...from judicial review of decisions, even when decisions directly afect human health and the environment. City of Elgin v. Cook County, 660 N.E.2d 875, 884, 889 (Ill. 1995). 10. “he people shall have the right to clean air and water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natur......