Sternaman v. County of McHenry

• Decision Date: 30 June 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77 C 1928.,77 C 1928.
• Citation: 454 F. Supp. 240
• Parties: John C. STERNAMAN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF McHENRY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

454 F. Supp. 240

John C. STERNAMAN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF McHENRY, Defendant.

No. 77 C 1928.

United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

June 30, 1978.

William L. Niro, Gerald D. Hosier, of Hosier, Niro & Daleiden, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

William J. Cowlin, State's Atty. of McHenry County, Woodstock, Ill., for defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

McGARR, District Judge.

The court, having heard the testimony of the witnesses for the parties in open court, having considered the documentary evidence and briefs of the parties, and otherwise being fully advised in the premises, hereby enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52, Fed.R.Civ.P. and enters judgment thereon pursuant to Rule 58, Fed.R.Civ.P.

I. The Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue

1. The plaintiff, John C. Sternaman (hereinafter, "Sternaman"), is an individual residing in this judicial district and division. Sternaman as a lessee is now and since the spring of 1972 has been in rightful possession of approximately sixty acres of land (hereinafter, "the Sternaman land") located in a rural, unincorporated area of Nunda Township, McHenry County, Illinois, the legal description of which is correctly set out in the complaint (PX 1, para. 1, 4; I-7).

2. The defendant, the County of McHenry (hereinafter, "the county"), is an Illinois county organized and existing as an Illinois corporation under S.H.A. Ch. 34, § 301 (PX 1, para. 2) and is physically located in this district and division. Like many counties in this state and elsewhere, the county has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating land use within the county (PX 3).

3. The present suit arises out of a controversy between the parties respecting the county's application of particular provisions of its zoning ordinance to Sternaman's business operations on said land. Specifically, in August, 1976, the county issued a final refusal to renew a ten-year conditional use permit (CUP) issued on September 14, 1965; the original permit had authorized certain on-site processing of sand and gravel mined on said land by Sternaman as of right. Sternaman was thereafter charged in quasi-criminal proceedings initiated by the county with multiple violations of its zoning ordinances (I-6-18; PX 3). Proceedings on these alleged violations are pending before the Illinois Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial District, McHenry County, i. e., County of McHenry v. John C. Sternaman, d/b/a Illinois Mining Company, Nos. 76-CM-2502 and 76-CM-2615 (DX 8 and 9).

4. The multicount complaint¹ (PX 1) herein alleges that, under the facts of this case, the county's refusal to renew the conditional use permit denies to Sternaman certain fundamental rights to which he is entitled under the Constitution of the United States, particularly the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The county contends that the Sternaman complaint (PX 1) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court disagrees; the court finds that the complaint properly states claims for a denial of "due process" (Count I), a denial of "equal protection" (Count II), and unconstitutional application of the ordinance provisions at issue (Count III). The claim of Count IV, alleging an "unlawful taking" without just compensation, finds no support in the evidence and is dismissed. A fifth count, alleging that the applicable provisions of the county's ordinance are preempted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, was not considered on its merits by the court and was voluntarily withdrawn from contention, since the issues of that count are now pending between the same parties before the Illinois Appellate Court in an interlocutory appeal filed by Sternaman in the aforesaid criminal action.

5. The county, on November 21, 1977, the final date then scheduled for the hearing of evidence in the subject cause, filed a motion to dismiss this cause on the grounds that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that it should in any event abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction, even if it found such to exist. The court on hearing the arguments of the parties denied the motion on November 21, 1977 without prejudice to the renewal of the motion at the close of the trial. The court has considered the renewed motion of the county and, except as to Count IV, again rejects the county's contentions. The court finds that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201 and 2202, in that the present action presents a genuine case or controversy arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States and that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interests and costs. The court finds that jurisdiction does not exist in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 or 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court rejects the county's invitation to dismiss this cause under the doctrine of abstention, the court finding that the facts warranted the exercise of jurisdiction by this court.

II. The Applicable Legal Standards

6. In hearing the conflicting evidence of the parties, the court was not unmindful of certain guiding principles, specifically, a zoning ordinance is presumed valid (Galt v. County of Cook, 405 Ill. 396, 91 N.E.2d 395), this presumption may only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence (Midland Electric Coal Corp. v. County of Knox, 1 Ill.2d 200, 115 N.E.2d 275), and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (Krom v. City of Elmhurst, 8 Ill.2d 104, 133 N.E.2d 1). It is likewise well established that it is primarily the province of the municipal body to determine the use and purpose to which property within its boundaries may be devoted, and it is neither the province nor the duty of a federal court to interfere with the discretion with which such bodies are vested, unless the legislative action of the municipality is shown to significantly invade the United States constitutional rights of the complaining party. La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook, 12 Ill.2d 40, 46, 145 N.E.2d 65 (1957).

7. The above zoning ordinance principles are applicable with undiminished force to "special" or "conditional" uses, such as are involved in this case. The local zoning authorities are vested with broad powers in determining the suitability of a given site for a proposed special or conditional use. But for this reason, the avenues of judicial review must be at least as readily available to the party who seeks to establish a special or conditional use as they are in the normal zoning case where courts have historically stood ready to determine whether the exercise of zoning power "involves an invasion of private rights without reasonable relation to the public welfare". Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank v. County of McHenry, 41 Ill.2d 77, 241 N.E.2d 454, 459 (1968).

8. The police power of the state and municipality are the justification for limiting a property owner's or lessor's traditional right to use his private property as he desires, and in determining whether the invasion of property rights under a purported police power is impermissible under the Constitution of the United States various factual inquiries are properly made by the courts. Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank v. County of McHenry, supra. Specifically, even though the validity of each zoning ordinance and conditional use permit must be determined on its own facts and circumstances, an examination of the Illinois cases discloses that among the facts which may be taken into consideration enroute to such determination are the following: 1) the existing uses and zoning of nearby property; 2) the extent to which the property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions; 3) the extent to which the destruction of property values of plaintiff promotes the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public; 4) the relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the individual property owner; and 5) the suitability of the subject property for the zoned purposes. La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook, supra, 12 Ill.2d at 46-47, 145 N.E.2d 65; see also, Shenk v. Zoning Commission of District of Columbia, 142 U.S.App.D.C. 267, 440 F.2d 295 (1971). In looking to Illinois law, this court is well aware of the fact that it does not possess the same latitude of powers as the state courts in ruling on the validity and enforceability of the county's action in denying the Sternaman application for a conditional use permit; this court is jurisdictionally restrained by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) to act only where it finds a violation of the laws and Constitution of the United States by the county's action in this case.

III. The Evidence Presented

9. Both parties called various witnesses and introduced a number of documents in support of their respective positions. In determining contested fact issues, the court has relied in substantial part upon its opportunity to hear the live testimony of the witnesses, and to observe their demeanor.

A. The McHenry County Zoning Ordinance

10. The County of McHenry some years ago enacted a zoning ordinance pursuant to a statutory delegation of authority from the State of Illinois, S.H.A. Ch. 34, §§ 3151, et seq. Sternaman does not in this proceeding challenge the validity of the ordinance per se, but only the conduct of the county in application to him of certain ordinance provisions, i. e., Sections 8 and 15, relating to the granting of conditional use permits as a necessary antecedent for the washing, screening or crushing of sand and gravel on farm-zoned property (PX 3).

11. The zoning ordinance (PX 3) divides unincorporated portions of the county into thirteen districts, ranging from single family residences on three or more acres (E District) to heavy industry, including iron and steel mills, cement mills, asbestos manufacturing and other heavy industrial uses (I-2 Industrial District).

12. As earlier noted, the Sternaman land comprises sixty acres...