O'Connor v. City of Rockford, 45021

• Decision Date: 02 October 1972
• Docket Number: No. 45021,45021
• Citation: 288 N.E.2d 432,52 Ill.2d 360
• Parties: Kathryn O'CONNOR et al., Appellants, v. The CITY OF ROCKFORD et al., Appellees.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 432

288 N.E.2d 432

52 Ill.2d 360

Kathryn O'CONNOR et al., Appellants, v. The CITY OF ROCKFORD et al., Appellees.

No. 45021.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 2, 1972.

Maynard & Brassfield, Rockford (Eugene E. Brassfield, Rockford, of counsel), for appellants.

William E. Collins, Legal Director, Rockford (A. Curtis Washburn, Asst. City Atty., of counsel), for appellees.

Ancel, Glink, Diamond & Murphy, Chicago (Marvin J. Glink, Chicago, of counsel), for amicus curiae, City of Naperville.

Rutherford H. Piatt, Chicago, for amicus curiae, Open Lands Project.

Merker & Adler, Bloomington (Evan A. Strawn, Bloomington, of counsel), for amicus curiae, Illinois Agricultural Assn.

GOLDENHERSH, Justice.

This litigation arises out of the efforts of the City of Rockford to maintain and operate a sanitary landfill on a 160-acre tract of land in an unincorporated area of Winnebago County. The record shows that several days after the city entered into a contract to purchase the land, the plaintiffs, who are the owners of land adjacent to the proposed site, filed an action in the circuit court of Winnebago County seeking a declaratory judgment that the city, in the operation of the proposed landfill, was subject to the zoning ordinances of Winnebago County and asking that the city be enjoined from 'the misappropriation of public funds * * * by purchasing the described property without first obtaining proper zoning from the Winnebago County Board of Supervisors.' Winnebago County was granted leave to intervene, and the circuit court, upon allowance of plaintiffs' and intervenor's motions for summary judgment, entered judgment in their favor and issued a permanent injunction enjoining the city and certain named officials 'from building, operating, establishing, or in any other manner using the following described real estate as a sanitary landfill, unless and until the existing zoning regulations of the County of Winnebago and State of Illinois have been fully complied with under the applicable county zoning ordinances and state statutes.' The city filed a notice of appeal, failed to perfect it, and the appeal was dismissed.

Several days after the circuit court issued the permanent injunction the city filed a petition to rezone the land for use as a sanitary landfill as a conditionally permitted use under the Winnebago County zoning ordinance. The petition was denied, and the city filed an action in the circuit court of Winnebago County for a declaratory judgment that the county zoning ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to the proposed landfill site. Plaintiffs were granted leave to intervene and after hearing evidence the circuit court entered judgment upholding the validity of the ordinance and approving the actions of the Winnebago County Zoning Board and the Winnebago County Board of Supervisors in their denial of the city's petition. The city appealed to the appellate court.

Upon the filing of our opinion in City of Des Plaines v. Sanitary District, 48 Ill.2d 11, 268 N.E.2d 428, the city filed a petition to dissolve the writ of permanent injunction in the first case, and the trial court, under compulsion of Des Plaines, dissolved the injunction but stayed the dissolution pending appeal. Plaintiffs appealed and the appellate court affirmed the order dissolving the permanent injunction and dismissed as moot the appeal from the declaratory judgment holding the county zoning ordinance constitutional. (O'Connor v. City of Rockford, 3 Ill.App.3d 548, 279 N.E.2d 356.) The appellate court thereafter denied rehearing and granted a certificate of importance to this court.

Plaintiffs, contending that the judgment of the appellate court should be reversed and the order dissolving the permanent injunction vacated, argue that the decision in Des Plaines does not control here for the reasons that in Des Plaines the sanitary district was performing a governmental function while the city here is performing a proprietary function, that the sanitary district was operating within its corporate limits while the city in this case will be operating outside its corporate limits, and that the sanitary district did not submit to the zoning jurisdiction of the city of Des Plaines while here the city did submit to the zoning jurisdiction of Winnebago County. They argue further that consideration must be given to the fact that the permit to operate the landfill issued to the city by the Department of Public Health, in compliance with Department of Public Health Rule 2.01, provided: 'This authority * * * does not release the permittee from compliance with * * * applicable local laws, regulations or zoning ordinances.'

Open Lands Project, a private not-for-profit organization, has filed an Amicus curiae brief urging reversal of the judgment of the appellate court. Its brief cites statistics and official publications to demonstrate the increasing amount of solid wastes being produced in the country and the growing public concern with the environmental damage caused by its disposal. It argues that a policy of permitting a municipality to establish a sanitary landfill outside its corporate limits regardless of the zoning applicable to the location will discourage adequate planning for solid waste disposal and defeat the Federal policy of area-wide cooperation. It distinguishes the Des Plaines case on the ground that the sanitary district was disposing of wastes within its territorial limits and contends further that the city's rights are adequately protected by the appeal provisions of the zoning ordinance and the applicable statutes.

The Illinois Agricultural Association has also filed an Amicus curiae brief urging reversal of the judgment. It argues that the acquisition and use of land by a city outside of its corporate limits results in disenfranchisement of the rural citizens; that section 11--19--10 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 24, par. 11--19--10) does not provide sufficient standards as to the type or location of land that may be acquired for solid waste disposal and 'invests the city with an arbitrary discretion'; and that as a matter of sound public policy, a municipality should not be permitted to acquire prime agricultural farm land to dispose of solid wastes when reasonable alternative methods of disposal, such as incineration, exist.

The city contends that solid waste disposal is a governmental function and that under the rationale of Des Plaines it may exercise the authority granted by section 11-19--10 without regard to the county zoning ordinance. The city of Naperville has filed an Amicus curiae brief urging this court not to adopt a governmental or proprietary function doctrine in determining whether a municipality which has acquired land outside of its corporate limits must comply with the zoning regulations of the host municipality. It argues further that 'The courts should only interfere with the exercise of statutory discretion in providing municipal service facilities upon a showing that such discretion was exercised in so patently unreasonable a manner as to indicate that the municipality has acted in bad faith.'

As in Des Plaines this case presents a confrontation arising from apparently antipodal legislative grants of authority to the city and county. Section 11--19--10 of the Illinois Municipal Code gave the city the authority to acquire, by purchase, gift or condemnation, real property within or without its corporate...