Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale

• Decision Date: 16 June 2007
• Docket Number: No. 2-06-0390.,2-06-0390.
• Parties: Katherine R. NAPLETON, as Trustee under the Katherine R. Napleton Revocable Self-Declaration of Trust Dated October 1, 1992, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The VILLAGE OF HINSDALE, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

872 N.E.2d 23

Katherine R. NAPLETON, as Trustee under the Katherine R. Napleton Revocable Self-Declaration of Trust Dated October 1, 1992, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The VILLAGE OF HINSDALE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2-06-0390.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

June 16, 2007.

Thomas J. Ramsdell, Carl E. Myers, Thomas J. Ramsdell & Associates, Chicago, for Katherine R. Napleton.

Mark E. Burkland, James T. Mueller, Holland & Knight LLP, Kenneth M. Florey, Nanci N. Rogers, Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor, Ltd., Chicago, for Village of Hinsdale.

Justice O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Katherine R. Napleton, appeals the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County, dismissing her first amended verified complaint (complaint) pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2004)). In her complaint, plaintiff sought to invalidate certain amendments to the zoning code of defendant, the Village of Hinsdale, which changed the permitted uses available to her property. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint by applying a rational basis test to determine the validity of the amendments to defendant's zoning code. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred because it did not consider the amendments to defendant's zoning code under a substantial relationship test. We affirm.

We summarize the pertinent allegations from plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff owns a group of contiguous parcels on Ogden Avenue in the Village of Hinsdale (the subject property). The subject property is improved with a structure that is currently leased to General Motors, which uses the subject property as a training facility. The subject property is zoned B-3 under defendant's zoning code.

Defendant's zoning code provides for three business zoning districts, B-1, B-2, and B-3. Section 5-101 of the Hinsdale zoning code provides that the "B-1 Community Business District" zoning classification "is intended to serve the every day shopping needs of Village residents as well as to provide opportunities for specialty shops attractive to [the] wider suburban residential community around the Village. It permits uses that are necessary to satisfy most basic, frequently occurring shopping needs." Hinsdale Zoning Code § 5-101 (2007). The "B-2 Central Business District" zoning classification "is intended to serve the entire Hinsdale suburban community with a wide variety of retail and service uses. It is intended to serve as the primary shopping area of the Village." Hinsdale Zoning Code § 5-101 (2007). The "B-3 General Business District" zoning classification "is intended to serve the Hinsdale suburban community with a full range of locally oriented business uses commonly located along established traffic routes." Hinsdale Zoning Code § 5-101 (2007).

Before the passage of the amendments to the zoning code of which plaintiff complains, the zoning code allowed depository and nondepository credit institutions to be permitted uses in properties under the B-1 and B-3 zoning classifications. The zoning code, however, did not allow depository and nondepository credit institutions to be permitted uses on the ground floors of properties under the B-2 zoning classification.

The area in which the subject property is located (on Ogden Avenue between York and County Line Roads) is commonly known as the Ogden/York Corridor. Properties located in the Ogden/York Corridor are mainly zoned B-3. By contrast, properties primarily zoned B-1 and B-2 are located in the "downtown commercial core" area of Hinsdale and not in the Ogden/York Corridor.

In March 2004, the Hinsdale Board of Trustees instituted a temporary moratorium related to beauty salons and financial institutions in the B-1 and the B-3 zoning districts, because the board was concerned with whether the businesses in the Village's business districts struck an appropriate balance between businesses that provide sales tax revenue and businesses that do not. The board of trustees instituted the moratorium even though the Hinsdale Plan Commission unanimously had voted against it. The effect of the temporary moratorium was to prevent beauty salons and financial institutions from being located on the ground floors of properties located in the B-1 and B-3 zoning districts.

While the temporary moratorium was in effect, defendant retained Gruen Gruen + Associates (GGA) to conduct a study including, among other things, the impact of beauty salons and financial institutions on taxable retail sales in the B-1 and B-3 zoning districts. GGA's study reported that beauty salons and barber shop businesses did not have a negative impact on the business districts within the Village. The GGA study also noted that additional credit institutions would likely impose an opportunity cost in the core part of downtown Hinsdale (which was zoned primarily B-1 and B-2). The study made no similar finding for the Ogden/York Corridor, where the subject property is located.

GGA recommended that the Village allow no additional credit institutions to be located on the ground floors of properties in the "B-2 Central Business District" zoning districts. GGA did not make that same recommendation for properties in the B-1 and B-3 zoning districts.

On January 18, 2005, defendant passed amendments to the Hinsdale Zoning Code that were designed to maintain an appropriate mix of sales-tax-revenue-generating and non-sales-tax-revenue-generating business uses in the Village and effectively made permanent the March 2004 temporary moratorium regarding depository and nondepository credit institutions. Specifically, defendant amended its zoning code to remove depository and nondepository credit institutions as permitted uses in the B-1 and B-3 zoning districts. Hinsdale Zoning Code § 5-102D (amended January 18, 2005). Instead, depository and nondepository credit institutions were made special uses for the B-1 and B-3 zoning districts. Hinsdale Zoning Code § 5-105B (amended January 18, 2005). Additionally, the zoning code was amended to prohibit any new depository or nondepository credit institution from being located on the first floor of any building in the B-1 or B-3 zoning district. Hinsdale Zoning Code § 5-109G (amended January 18, 2005). Further, depository and nondepository credit institutions were limited to two drive-through lanes. Hinsdale Zoning Code § 5-109H (amended January 18, 2005).

Plaintiff alleged that the result of the January 2005 amendments was to effectively prevent all properties located in the B-1 and B-3 zoning districts from having financial institutions located on the ground floors. Plaintiff alleged that this would prevent her from ever being able to sell or lease the subject property to a financial institution. Plaintiff further alleged that the amendments caused seven structures containing financial institutions in the B-1 and B-3 zoning districts to become nonconforming.

Following the amendment to defendant's zoning code, on July 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint challenging the validity of the amendments as applied to the subject property. Pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff withdrew her complaint and, subsequently, filed the first amended complaint, challenging the validity of the amendments on their face.

Defendant, pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code, moved to dismiss the first amended complaint. On February 15, 2006, the trial court granted the motion without prejudice. Plaintiff elected to stand on her pleading and, on March 13, 2006, obtained a final order of dismissal of her complaint. From this final order, plaintiff timely appeals.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint pursuant to defendant's section 2-615 motion to dismiss. A section 2-615 motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of a complaint, asserting the presence of defects on the face of the complaint. Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill.2d 422, 429, 305 Ill.Dec. 897, 856 N.E.2d 1048 (2006). When reviewing the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to section 2-615, we accept as true the well-pleaded facts of the complaint along with all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts. Marshall, 222 Ill.2d at 429, 305 Ill.Dec. 897, 856 N.E.2d 1048. We also construe the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Marshall, 222 Ill.2d at 429, 305 Ill.Dec. 897, 856 N.E.2d 1048. The plaintiff is required to allege facts, and not simply conclusions, sufficient to bring its claim within a legally recognized cause of action. Marshall, 222 Ill.2d at 429-30, 305 Ill.Dec. 897, 856 N.E.2d 1048. In light of these principles, a cause of action should not be dismissed pursuant to a section 2-615 motion to dismiss unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Marshall, 222 Ill.2d at 429, 305 Ill.Dec. 897, 856 N.E.2d 1048. We review de novo the grant of a section 2-615 motion to dismiss. Marshall, 222 Ill.2d at 429, 305 Ill.Dec. 897, 856 N.E.2d 1048.

Plaintiff purports to state a facial challenge to the validity of the amendments, rather than a challenge to the validity of the amendments as applied to her property. An as-applied challenge represents a plaintiff's objection to how a particular ordinance was applied in the specific context in which the plaintiff found himself while a facial challenge represents the plaintiff's claim that a specific ordinance cannot be constitutionally applied in any context. Lamar Whiteco Outdoor Corp. v. City of West Chicago, 355 Ill.App.3d 352, 365, 291 Ill.Dec. 318, 823 N.E.2d 610 (2005). The distinction is important because the plaintiff's specific context, or the facts specifically applicable to the plaintiff's property, are relevant only in an as-applied challenge. Lamar Whiteco, 355 Ill.App.3d...