Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/2010

Home

\. .,. t. ; \ . 'It;'. .. ,,;. '.: .... .. . . ~ . '" :'1 ':1 I I , ! .J I . 'j ! :! . I I ! . ! ' i i I I I I 1 i I I 1 I I I I i I I 0..'....;... .... ,~ (:... . ",' ~:~.---;;::.,..::..:~:; :::::7' . . ~. . . . . ...... ':":' . '. .... l..' .. - . :,. : . . Zoning Bulletin January L?, 2010 I Vo.lume 41 No.2' ri '- . In 2001, thePassalinos sought to develop remaining undeveloped' portions of the Property with multi-family units. At that time they" were surprised to learnofthe 1996 'Ordinance and the zoning changes. The Passalinos eventually brought a lawsuit against the City. Among other things, . the Passalinosargued that their constitUtionally ptovided due process rights. were violated because they did not have actual no- tice of hearings on,the Ordinance. '. The City maintained that its notices were adequate to satisfy due process. The City said this was because it strictly complied with the mininium requirements pertaining to rezoning and 'notice, as provided under S 11-13-2 of the lllinois Municipal Code. . The Passalinos filed a' motion for summary judgment. They asked the circuit court to find that there were no material issues of fact in dis- pute and to deCide the .matter in their favor on the law alone, The circuit court granted the Passalinos' motion for summary judg- ment. The cour1:tound that $ 11-13-2 was unconstitutional as applied to the Passalinos. The court also declared the Ordinance void as to the Passalinos' parcel. The City appealed, ,The Co~'s Decision: ]upgment. of the Circuit Court in favor of the property owners is affirmed. The Supreme Court of lllinois held that the City's notice by newspa- . per publicatioIlof.hearings on the Ordinance, although in strict com- pliance with the state statutory notice provision of $11-13-2, yiolated the Passalinos' procedural due proc.ess rights. , " The court explained that under the 5th and 14th. Amendments to the United States Constitution, "prior to a deprivation of life, liberty or property, a party is entitled to 'notice and opportunity for [ a] hear- ing ~ppropriate to the nature of the case.'" Here, the Passalinos' prop- erty interest entitled them to procedural due process in relation to :?on- ing changes affecting their Property. In other words, under the federal Constitution; the Passa,Iinos had a right to object to any proposed zon- ing changes that affecte~ the Property in which they had an interest. The Passalinos had argued that the City's newspaper notices were. inadequate to satisfy the Passalinos' due process rights because the Pas- salinos did not have "actual notice" of the hearings. The court agreed. The court said that notice must be "reasonably calculated, under all circUmstances, to apprise interested. parties of the pendency of the ac- tion and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." In other words, balancing the interests of the City and property own- ers, the City must take reasonable action to notify affected property oWners of zoning changes. "[N]otice.by publication;" said the court, "is not sufficient with respect to an individual whose name and ad- dress are known and easily ascertainable." That is because such notice @ 2010 Thomson Reuters . 5 .., ., ."..'i ", '.-, " , ~ ...... .:..... .::r,") :;~< ...." . .?-t ,;..~ ,.' .t$I."..... .' .......: 69