City of Elgin v. County of Cook, Nos. 1-90-1984

CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtRIZZI
Citation629 N.E.2d 86,257 Ill.App.3d 186,195 Ill.Dec. 778
Docket Number2-91-0912,Nos. 1-90-1984
Decision Date22 December 1993
Parties, 195 Ill.Dec. 778 The CITY OF ELGIN; the Village of Bartlett; the Village of South Elgin; the Village of Wayne; and Hanover Township, municipal corporations of the State of Illinois, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The COUNTY OF COOK; a municipal corporation of the State of Illinois, the Northwest Municipal Conference; the Chicago Gravel Company; and the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County, Defendants-Appellees. The VILLAGE OF BARTLETT; the City of Elgin; Citizens Against the Balefill; and William C. McHugh, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant, (People ex rel. Gary V. Johnson, State's Attorney of the County of Kane; and the County of Kane, Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellees; the City of Evanston, Defendant).

Page 86

629 N.E.2d 86
257 Ill.App.3d 186, 195 Ill.Dec. 778
The CITY OF ELGIN; the Village of Bartlett; the Village of
South Elgin; the Village of Wayne; and Hanover
Township, municipal corporations of the
State of Illinois, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
The COUNTY OF COOK; a municipal corporation of the State of
Illinois, the Northwest Municipal Conference; the Chicago
Gravel Company; and the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook
County, Defendants-Appellees.
The VILLAGE OF BARTLETT; the City of Elgin; Citizens
Against the Balefill; and William C. McHugh,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
The SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY, a municipal
corporation, Defendant-Appellant, (People ex rel. Gary V.
Johnson, State's Attorney of the County of Kane; and the
County of Kane, Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellees; the City
of Evanston, Defendant).
Nos. 1-90-1984, 2-91-0912.
Appellate Court of Illinois,
First District, Third Division.
Dec. 22, 1993.

Page 89

[195 Ill.Dec. 781] [257 Ill.App.3d 189] Erwin W. Jentsch, Elgin, for City of Elgin and Village of Wayne in No. 1-90-1984.

Edward S. Mraz, Roselle, for Village of Bartlett, Village of Wayne and Hanover Township in No. 1-90-1984.

Kenneth F. Miles, Elgin, for Village of South Elgin in No. 1-90-1984.

Jack O'Malley, State's Atty. of Cook County, Chicago (Eric Dunham, William Motto, Donald Delvin, of counsel), for County of Cook in No. 1-90-1984.

Thomas R. Burney, Glenn C. Sechen, Matthew M. Klein, Brian M. Fornek, Chicago, for The Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County, and Northwest Mun. Conference in No. 1-90-1984.

[257 Ill.App.3d 190] Rooks, Pitts & Pouts, Chicago (Geoffrey A. Bryce, Thomas R. Hill, of counsel), for The Chicago Gravel Co. in No. 1-90-1984.

[257 Ill.App.3d 189] Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago (Julian C. D'Esposito, Jr., Russell R. Eggert, Thomas P. Healy, Jr., Lori E. Lightfoot, of counsel), and Thomas R. Burney, Glenn C. Sechen, Chicago, for Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County in No. 2-91-0912.

Edward S. Mraz, Bryan E. Mraz, Roselle, Myron M. Cherry, Peter Flynn, Chicago, for Village of Bartlett, City of Elgin, Citizens Against the Balefill, and William C. McHugh in No. 2-91-0912.

[257 Ill.App.3d 190] Robert M. Foote, Craig S. Mielke, Aurora, Gary V. Johnson, J. Patrick Jaeger, Geneva, for intervening plaintiffs People ex rel. Gary

Page 90

[195 Ill.Dec. 782] V. Johnson, State's Atty. of the County of Kane and the County of Kane in No. 2-91-0912.

Justice RIZZI delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs, City of Elgin, Village of Bartlett, Village of South Elgin, Village of Wayne and Hanover Township, brought this declaratory judgment action in the circuit court of Cook County against defendants, County of Cook, Northwest Municipal Conference (NWMC), Chicago Gravel Company and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC), seeking a declaration that the ordinance adopted by the County Board of the County of Cook (County Board) granting a special use permit to construct a solid waste disposal facility (balefill) on a 573-acre tract of land located in Cook and Kane Counties (Site) is invalid (First District action). Following a hearing on defendants' motion to strike portions of plaintiffs' complaint, the trial court entered an order sua sponte dismissing the First District action with prejudice. Thereafter, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

In a related action, plaintiffs, Village of Bartlett, City of Elgin, Citizens Against the Balefill and William C. McHugh, and intervening plaintiffs, People ex rel. Gary V. Johnson, State's Attorney of the County of Kane, and County of Kane, brought an injunctive action in the circuit court of Kane County seeking to enjoin defendants SWANCC and City of Evanston, from proceeding with preliminary activities associated with commencement of construction of the balefill (Second District action). The trial court entered an ex parte temporary restraining order enjoining defendants from, inter alia, cutting any trees or otherwise damaging the Site. Defendants entered an appearance and filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' and intervening plaintiffs' complaints, transfer venue of the Second District action to Cook County and dissolve the temporary restraining order. Following hearings, the trial court entered orders denying defendants' motions and continuing the injunction until further order of the court. Thereafter, defendants brought this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 307 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 110A, par. 307). On November 18, 1991, the Illinois Supreme Court transferred the Second District action to the First Judicial District of the Illinois Appellate Court and consolidated it with the First District action for consideration and disposition pursuant to its supervisory authority.

[257 Ill.App.3d 191] 1-90-1984

In 1982, NWMC, an organization of municipalities located in north and northwest Cook County, began to develop a comprehensive plan in response to the lack of available disposal space for municipal waste in northern Illinois. In January 1987, NWMC filed an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals of Cook County (Zoning Board) for a special use permit to develop and construct a balefill on 410 acres of the Site located in unincorporated Cook County. Following public hearings, the Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of the application. On November 16, 1987, the County Board passed an ordinance granting preliminary approval for the special use permit subject to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) approval.

In May 1988, NWMC formed SWANCC, a municipal joint action agency pursuant to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 127, par. 741 et seq.), for the purpose of developing, constructing and operating the balefill. On November 16, 1989, the IEPA issued a developmental permit allowing SWANCC to commence construction of the balefill subject to approval by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. On January 16, 1990, the County Board passed an ordinance granting final siting approval for the balefill. As of January 6, 1993, the date of oral arguments, SWANCC had not received Federal approval to construct or operate the balefill.

Plaintiffs brought the First District action seeking a declaration that the zoning ordinance granting the special use permit to construct the balefill is invalid. Following a hearing on defendants' motion to strike portions of plaintiffs' complaint brought pursuant

Page 91

[195 Ill.Dec. 783] to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110, par. 2-615), the trial court entered an order sua sponte dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Thereafter, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that (1) the trial court erred when it dismissed their complaint sua sponte; and (2) the trial court erred when it denied their motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs first contend that the trial court erred when it dismissed their complaint sua sponte. An applicant seeking siting approval for a regional pollution control facility must meet and secure all necessary zoning approvals from the unit of government having zoning jurisdiction over the proposed facility. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1039(c); Village of Carpentersville v. Pollution Control Board (1990), 135 Ill.2d 463, 470-71, 142 Ill.Dec. 848, 854, 553 N.E.2d 362, 368. Where, as here, the regional pollution control facility will be constructed in unincorporated[257 Ill.App.3d 192] Cook County, defendants must secure siting approval from the county board of Cook County. Review of siting approval permits granted by the county board of Cook County shall be brought directly in the circuit court by declaratory judgment action. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1039.2(h); Stark v. Pollution Control Board (1988), 177 Ill.App.3d 293, 296, 126 Ill.Dec. 624, 626, 532 N.E.2d 309, 311.

Defendants argue that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint here because plaintiffs, local municipalities, do not have standing to challenge the zoning ordinance. We disagree. A municipality has standing to challenge a zoning ordinance of another governmental unit if the ordinance will cause substantial, direct and adverse affects to the complaining municipality in its corporate capacity. Equity Associates, Inc. v. Village of Northbrook (1988), 171 Ill.App.3d 115, 117-18, 121 Ill.Dec. 71, 73-74, 524 N.E.2d 1119, 1121-22. In Village of Barrington Hills v. Village of Hoffman Estates (1980), 81 Ill.2d 392, 398, 43 Ill.Dec. 37, 40, 410 N.E.2d 37, 40, the supreme court held that a municipality was directly, substantially and adversely affected in its corporate capacity by the zoning ordinance of a neighboring municipality where the complaining municipality alleged that it would incur decreased tax revenues, increased municipal expenditures and degradation of ambient air quality resulting from increased vehicular exhaust and sound levels. Plaintiffs here allege that the zoning ordinance will result in decreased tax revenues due to lower property values, increased municipal expenditures for road repairs, maintenance, law enforcement and alternative water supplies, and a degradation of ambient air quality due to increased vehicular exhaust and noxious fumes from the balefill. Because the allegations of substantial, direct and adverse injurious affects to plaintiffs' corporate capacity are virtually identical to the injuries alleged by the complaining municipality in Village of Barrington Hills, we conclude, for the purposes of this motion to dismiss, that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the zoning ordinance. It is therefore necessary for us to determine whether the well-pled facts alleged in plaintiffs' complaint, if proven, state a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Calamari v. Drammis, No. 1-96-1102
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 4, 1997
    ...if that amendment will not cure the defects in the original pleading. City of Elgin v. County Page 292 [221 Ill.Dec. 771] of Cook, 257 Ill.App.3d 186, 198-99, 195 Ill.Dec. 778, 629 N.E.2d 86 In this case, the circuit court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply with section 2......
  • Village of Schaumburg v. Doyle, No. 1-94-0460
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 5, 1996
    ...Hospital v. Town of Canoe Creek (1979), 79 Ill.App.3d 490, 34 Ill.Dec. 738, 398 N.E.2d 413. In City of Elgin v. County of Cook (1993), 257 Ill.App.3d 186, 195 Ill.Dec. 778, 629 N.E.2d 86, the City challenged a county zoning ordinance granting a special use permit to build a solid waste disp......
  • City of Elgin v. County of Cook, Nos. 76775
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • November 2, 1995
    ...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 ......
  • Lake County Riverboat v. Ill. Gaming Bd., No. 2-99-1434.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 19, 2000
    ...519, 382 N.E.2d 1217 (1978). An order fixing or transferring venue is an interlocutory order. See City of Elgin v. County of Cook, 257 Ill.App.3d 186, 200, 195 Ill.Dec. 778, 629 N.E.2d 86 (1993). Here, there is no evidence of judge shopping. Judge Walter was administratively assigned to the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Calamari v. Drammis, No. 1-96-1102
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 4, 1997
    ...if that amendment will not cure the defects in the original pleading. City of Elgin v. County Page 292 [221 Ill.Dec. 771] of Cook, 257 Ill.App.3d 186, 198-99, 195 Ill.Dec. 778, 629 N.E.2d 86 In this case, the circuit court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply with section 2......
  • Village of Schaumburg v. Doyle, No. 1-94-0460
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 5, 1996
    ...Hospital v. Town of Canoe Creek (1979), 79 Ill.App.3d 490, 34 Ill.Dec. 738, 398 N.E.2d 413. In City of Elgin v. County of Cook (1993), 257 Ill.App.3d 186, 195 Ill.Dec. 778, 629 N.E.2d 86, the City challenged a county zoning ordinance granting a special use permit to build a solid waste disp......
  • City of Elgin v. County of Cook, Nos. 76775
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • November 2, 1995
    ...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 ......
  • Lake County Riverboat v. Ill. Gaming Bd., No. 2-99-1434.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 19, 2000
    ...519, 382 N.E.2d 1217 (1978). An order fixing or transferring venue is an interlocutory order. See City of Elgin v. County of Cook, 257 Ill.App.3d 186, 200, 195 Ill.Dec. 778, 629 N.E.2d 86 (1993). Here, there is no evidence of judge shopping. Judge Walter was administratively assigned to the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT