Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/07/1995

Home

DECISION: Reversed, permit denied. Vulcan's application was properly denied because the quarry was not in harmony with the surrounding land uses and the general development plan. The board's decision was supported by evidence which showed there were no industrial uses near the land, only residential and agricultural uses. The county's comprehensive plan reserved the proposed'quarry site for residential USES. Ghidorzi Construction/nc. v. Tow~ of Chapel Hill, 342 S.E. 2d 545 (1987). Zoning Change -- County Denies Rezoning Request That Would Allow Asphalt Plant to Operate in Agricultural Zone Freesen Inc. v. County of McLean, 630 N.E. 2d 1252 (Illinois) 1994 Freesen Inc. wanted to operate an asphalt manufacturing plant in a gravel pit area in McLean County, Ill. The site was about one and a half miles outside the village of Downs. Under the county's zoning scheme, the gravel pit area was zoned for agricultural use. Freesen requested that the county rezone the land for general manufacturing use. After a hearing, the county board voted against rezoning. Freesen sued the county to overturn the decision. It asked the court to de- clare the board's decision arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. The court allowed Freesen's request for judgment without a trial, finding Freesen was deprived of the best use of its land. The court also said the county's zoning of the land as agricultural was unreasonable. The village of Downs sought to join the case as a party, and the county asked the court to reconsider the judgment in favor of Freesen. The court tem- porarily reversed the judgment, but later reasserted its finding that the board wrongly deprived Freesen of its rezoning request. The village appealed the judgment, and Freesen appealed the court's deci- sion to allow the village to join the case. DECISION: Reversed in part and returned to the lower court. Freesen's judgment was reversed, so the lower court had to hold further proceedings. The decision to let the village join the case was affirmed. The lower court should have held a trial because factual disputes remained between Freesen and the county. The lower court in'tproperly relied on pro- ceedings before the zoning board when it ruled for Freesen. The court's role was to decide whether the zoning restriction was arbitrary as applied to Freesen. It should have presumed the ordinance to be reasonable until Freesen proved at a trial that it was unreasonable. The village could join the case because the outcome of the zoning contro- versy substantially affected its interests, including local services and property values. K~or ~; County of Madison,. 502 N.E. 2d 1063 (1986).